Chennai Court December 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
TVS Employees' Federation and others Vs. TVS and Sons Ltd. and another ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas37(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. TVS Employees' Federation, Bombay, represented by its president and four others, who are defendants in a suit for permanent in junction, have preferred the instant appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this court against the order of temporary injunction pending suit by a learned single in O.A. No. 45 of 1991. 2. The plaintiff-first respondent herein is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its head office at 7-B, West Veli Street, Madurai, and having its branches in Madras and all over Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Goa. It consists of three divisions, viz., Sundaram Motors, Madras Auto Service and TVS, Madurai. Madras Auto Service is engaged in the business of dealing in spare parts and other accessories for motor vehicles. Sundaram Motor and T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited, i.e., the other two divisions, are also engaged in the business of rendering sales, service and repairs to automobiles of various description...
Sellamuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2143
Janarthanam, J. 1. The Appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 127/85 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions, Periyar Division, Erode. He was found guilty under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, the present action had been resorted to. 3. The brief facts are : (a) The accused Chellamuthu and Palanisami (since deceased) are cousins. They are residents of Edakattuvalasu situate within the limits of Vellakovil Police Station. They are neighbours. P.W. 3 also lives in the place and vicinity of their residence. Their house is situate on the East of the north-south road in the village. Both the houses face east. (b) One Ponnusami Pappathi alias Valliammal owns certain lands in the village. The land called Kolakadu belongi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chapparai Transport (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR709(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 79(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier years' losses and unabsorbed depreciation should be carried forward and considered in future years ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. There was a change in its shareholdings during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1977-78 in which not less than 51 per cent. of the voting power was transferred to and held by persons other than the previous shareholders. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment, refused to carry forward the loss of the earlier years besides unabsorbed depreciation to future years. According to the Income-tax Officer, the assessee violated the conditions l...
N. Mohan (Legal Heir of the Late G.S. Nataraja Chettiar) Vs. Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR701(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The writ petition is for quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made in (C. Nos. 1411, 153 to 157 of 1982-83), dated July 28, 1984. The relevant facts are as follows : One Mettupalayam-Coonoor Service Private Limited was carrying on transport operations. That belonged to the members of a Hindu undivided family, which consisted of four branches represented by S. A. K. Nanjappa Chettiar and is three brothers, Subramania Chettiar, Elliah Chettiar and Chinnathambi Chettiar. One of the brothers, Subramania Chettiar passed away in 1949 and all the family properties with the exception of the business which was in the name of the company were partitioned. The sons of Subramania Chettiar, one of whom was Nataraja Chettiar, were allotted a fourth share in the properties. In 1962 Nanjappa Chettiar, who was the managing director till then of the company, passed away. On his demise, differences arose between the serving members of the family. Elliah Chettiar and the ...
Pauline Ratchaganathan and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-c ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ535
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners. The first writ petition was filed on 21.12.1983 for quashing the proceedings in reference Al 15/83 dated 12.10.1983. The said proceedings are under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are co-owners along with Mrs. Jaqualin Ratchaganathan and Selvam. The first petitioner is the mother of the petitioners 2 and 3 and the said Selvam. The said Jaqualin Ratchaganathan is the second wife of the said Ratchaganathan. Selvam and Jaqualin being away from India, they have not joined the writ petitions. The property consists of land in R.S. No. 93/44A of Vadakailasam Village in Panruthi Taluk with a building thereon. Notification is issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the property for the purpose of having Panruti Post Office in that place. On receipt of a notice under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners sent through their lawyer their objections to the acquisition. One of...
T.D. Md. Meeran Vs. Munirul Islam Majeed, Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ121
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in Original Suit No. 119 of 1982, filed this appeal, challenging the correctness of the decree and judgment passed in the said suit, by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, on 25.10.1983, which was filed by the respondent herein praying for the delivery and possession of the suit property as well as the mesne profits.2. The Brief facts of the case, among the parties are extracted hereunder:The non-residential building, bearing door No. 300, situated at Nethaji Street, Erode town is the suit property, and it absolutely belongs to the respondent herein, which is a trust established by a few persons, by purchasing the said property for running the mosque. The defendant in the suit, the appellant herein, being the tenant, was inducted into the possession of the said premises, originally at a very low rate and then on being revised from time to time, the agreed rent, at the last time, was at Rs. 2,500 per mensem payable on the 5th day of...
Tamizharasi and Another Vs. Assistant Director, Narcotic Control Burea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)562; 1996CriLJ208
Arunachalam, J.1. A common question of law has been urged before us in all these three habeas corpus petition and hence it would be better to dispose of all these petitions through a common order. HCP No. 1676 of 1994 is capable of being disposed of on factual material, without legal ramifications, affecting its termination. 2. Facts in HCP No. 1675 of 1994 : Petitioner Tamizharasi is the wife of Arumugham, whose liberty she has coveted in this Habeas Corpus Petition, alleging that he has been kept under illegal detention in Central Prison, Madras, on and after 27-9-1994. The averments in her affidavit show that Arumugham was arrested on 27-6-1994 from his residence. Neither documents nor contraband stood recovered from him. However, it is alleged by the prosecution that he is involved in the export of certain Narcotic Drugs which were seized in a foreign country. Arumugham was remanded to judicial custody on 26-8-1994. Every 14 days, remand was being extended. The period of 90 days ex...
R.K.K.R. Steels Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT576(Mad)
ORDER1. In all the writ petitions the petitioners have sought for issue of writs in the nature of prohibition exhibiting the respondents from proceeding further or dealing with or adjudicating the matter with regard to the respective show cause notices issued to the petitioners and to pass such other orders as this Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the cases. 2. The facts leading to these writ petitions are almost similar and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents are also similar touching the questions of law except stating the nature of the disputes in different writ petitions such as the rate of duty and the applicability of exemption notification, classification disputes, wrong availment of 'MODVAT' credit and brand name issue. In this view it is enough to set out the facts in W.P. No. 6709 of 1994 and the substances of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents indicating their stand for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. 3. In Writ Peti...
Medopharam Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT524(Mad)
K.A. Swamy, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 27-1-1994 passed by the learned singly Judge in W.P. No. 5036 of 1989. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner/ appellant has challenged the show cause notice. The learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case and dismissed the Writ Petition. We are of the view that whenever a show cause notice is issued under the provisions of Central Excises & Salt Act, which provides for adjudicator forum and also right of first appeal to the Collector and second appeal to the CEGAT, exercise of Jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not warranted. In such cases, the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 would amount to by-passing the statutory remedy provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, which is not just and proper. Even though the Writ petition is pending for a period of more than six years, still we are of the view that the petitioner should be directed to work out its remedies as per the p...
Medopharm Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT517(Mad)
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the common order dated 27-1-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9006 to 9010 of 1988 respectively. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner/appellant has challenged the order passed by the Collector under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), determining the amount of excise duty payable by the appellant. As against the order of the Collector, there is an appeal provided to the CEGAT. Appeal lies both on facts and law. Instead of availing the remedy of the appeal, petitioner/ appellant has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We are also conscious of the fact that these writ petitions are pending for the year 1988. But, we are of the view that as the appeal lies, both on facts and law, against the order of the Collector, the interests of the appellant, as well as the Department, would be better served, by directing the appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »