Chennai Court February 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.
Bharathanatyam Alias Disco Alias Nagarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)208; 1994CriLJ3546
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. S. Shanmughavelayudham, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State in both the petitions; the Court made the following order :-Both these original petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the petitioner and the respondent are the same and the ground urged is identical. 2. Petitioner Bharathanatyam alias Disco alias Nagarajan, is the sole accused in CC. No. 2548 of 1989 and CC. No. 2547 of 1989, both pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai. Petitioner is alleged to have committed theft. (Snatching of gold chains from the necks of 1 1/2 and 3 1/2 years old children). Petitioner preferred Criminal M.P. Nos. 6483 of 1990 and 6484 of 1990 before the trial Magistrate to hold him as a juvenile, since his date of birth was 25-4-1974 and he had completed only 15 years and 2...
Arcath Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT575(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner are said to be a small scale unit, having a Textile Mill. They imported for the purpose of their business 200 bales of Synthetic Soft Waste (Acrylic). According to them the goods were shipped under a bill of lading dated 11-9-1993. This date is important because as and from 14-9-1993 the subject goods were brought under the restricted list and the goods could not have been imported without a licence. The petitioner filed the Bill of Entry on 17-11-1993. Even according to the petitioners there was an enquiry by the third respondent and summons was issued to the petitioners on account of a suspicion that the real bill of lading was dated 23-10-1993. Since the matter was getting delayed the petitioners wrote to the second respondent on 21-12-1993 seeking permission to bond the consignment in a bonded warehouse, if the respondents did not immediately clear the consignment. According to the petitioner they were suffering demurrage and container-detention charges at th...
Dr. M. Karunanidhi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Hom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2599
Srinivasan, J.1. In all these cases, the common question is whether G.O.Ms. No. 972, Home (Prison-B) dated 8-6-1992 is unconstitutional and invalid. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that W.P. No. 8710 of 1992 has become infructuous inasmuch as the persons on whose behalf of the petition was filed are not in detention. But, we do not want to dismiss the petition on the ground that it has become infructuous since we are considering the same question in the other writ petitions.2. The Prisons Act, 1894 (Central Act IX of 1894) empowers the Government to make rules. Section 59 provides for the same. Section 40 of the said Act provides that due provision shall be made for the admission at proper times and under proper restrictions, into every prison of persons with whom civil or unconvicted criminal prisoners may desire to communicate. Care being taken that, so far as may be consistent with the interest of justice, prisoners under trial may see their duly qualified legal ...
S. Ganapathy Konar Vs. E. Ganapathy Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ198
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These civil revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 35 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Valliyur (which was originally O.S. No. 12 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tirunelveli).2. C.R.P. No. 3163 of 1993 has been filed against the order dated 26.7.1993, allowing I.A. No. 680 of 1992 in the said suit. The application was filed by the respondent/defendant for excusing the delay of 33months in filing the application to set aside Iheex pane decree dated 5.1.1989 in the abovesaid suit.3. C.R.P. No. 3164 of 1993 is against the order dated 26.7.1993,allowingI.A.No. 681 ofl992 filed by the defendant-respondent for setting aside the abovesaid ex pane decree dated 5.1.1989.4. Even at the outset, I may state that curiously the above I.A. No. 681 of 1992 has been numbered even before the abovesaid I.A. No. 680 of 1992 has been allowed. In other words, both the applications have been numbered together and posted for ...
R.K. Star Productions and Etc. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad4
ORDER1. When the miscellaneous petitions are posted for hearing, by consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal considering the limited scope of prayer asked for in the writ petitions.2. In W.P. No. 19052/1993 the prayer is as follows:-- To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the grant of Censorship Certificate for their picture KUTTR AP ATHIRIK Al' (Tamil) (Cenemascope Colour) within a time limit fixed 'by this court. In W.P. No. 18568 of 1993 the prayer is as follows:-- To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application dated 31-12-1992 of the film 'KUTRAPATHIR1KAI' (Tamil Feature film) within a period stipulated by this court. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 is the producer of the picture of 'KUTTRAPATH1R1KAI' (Tamil) Cinemascope colour) and the petitioner in W.P. No. 18668 of 1993 is a Distributor who has obtained the rig...
Fenner (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1994
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas1(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in E.O.C.C. No. 20 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 310 read with section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. (first accused) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The second accused is the managing director of the said company. Accused Nos. 3 to 9 are non-wholetime directors of the company. The officer authorised by the Central Government inspected the affairs of the company from September 5, 1990, to September 18, 1990. During the course of inspection, it was found that clause 92 of the articles of association of the company empowere...
H.M. Brothers (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Monsing and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas626(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 1684, 1685 and 3492 of 1993, on the file of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, have filed the petitions under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in the above cases and to quash the same. 2. The short facts are : In C.C. No. 1684 of 1993, the respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The first accused is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by the second accused, who is a director of the first accused and is responsible for the day to day management and affairs of the business. The accused borrowed Rs. 10,00,000 at the rate of 36 per cent. per annum and issued a promissory note, ...
N.C. Srinivasan Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR236(Mad)
1. In all these three writ petitions, the petitioner is common. The assessment years are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner is aggrieved by the common order of the second respondent, dated January 6, 1982, declining to grant the deduction claimed by the petitioner under section 80U(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the petitioner being a charter accountant cannot be heard to say that he was not aware of the legal position under the statute, especially with regard to the deduction under section 80U of the Act. 3. The brief facts are following : The petitioner as mentioned above is a chartered accountant. Some time in January, 1974, he had a stroke on account of which he was partially disabled from attending to his regular work. In the hope that he would be alright in due course, he did not claim the benefit of section 80U(ii) of the Act while submitting the income-tax returns. Unfortunately, the ailment became worse and he was obliged to retire from the partn...
Harikrishnan and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ243
ORDERKanakraj, J.1. These two writ petitions relate to the validity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued under G.O.Ms. No. 891, Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 18.10.1989 and the subsequent declaration under Section 6, in G.O.Ms. No. 10, Backward Classes and Most Backward classes Welfare, dated 18.1.1991.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6008 of 1991 owns 54 1/2 cents in R.S. No. 51/3, Keelmalai Village, Gin-gee Taluk, he having acquired the same in a partition effected in the year 1993. The other half of the property of the extent of 54 1/2 cents was allotted to his brother, who subsequently sold that property on 13.10.1978, to one Harikrishnan, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 6007 of 1991. The acquisition is for the alleged purpose of providing house sites to certain dobies and barbers of Keelamali village. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act ...
Buckau Wolf India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C.Ex., Madras-vii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT661(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner had exported 16 packages of sugar mill machinery to Bangladesh through Radhikapur Land Customs. It is stated that the goods crossed the customs border on 1-5-1981, 16-5-1981, 27-5-1981 and 8-11-1981. By way of incentive the exporter is entitled to claim certain rebate. The petitioner filed an application for payment of rebate which was received by the office of the first respondent on 20-7-1982. The application was rejected as barred by limitation by invoking Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act. An appeal was also dismissed on 27-10-1983 and the revision to the Government was dismissed on 22-9-1986. It is not disputed that all the authorities have held that the claim for refund or payment of rebate was barred by limitation with reference to Section 11B of the Act. It is also not disputed that the authorities had taken note of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules and have held that the same will not enable the authority to dispense with the period of limi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›