Chennai Court March 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.
T. Ramaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad313
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be an ex-service man. He had voluntarily retired from armed service and had joined service in a paper mills at Pallipalayam. He retired from service on 31-12-1981. The petitioner had purchased a small plot on 15-9-1976, with the sole object of constructing a house for his residence and the residence of his family members. According to him, he proceeded to construct a house in September 1981. To his misfortune, his land along with certain other lands were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by publishing the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act on 11-11-1981. The petitioner's plot is only of an extent of 1,650 sq. ft. and it forms part of large extent of I acre 39 cents in Survey No. I98/4B in Kadachinallur Village, Tiruchengode Village, Tiruchengode Taluk. An enquiry under S. 5Aof the Act was held on 22-1-1982. The petitioner submitted his objections on 6-2-1982 and 18-3-1992. The objections of the petitioner were communicated to the S...
N. Muthuraman and ors. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Sociat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ104
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. It is directed against the communication sent by the first respondent viz., the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore, on 4.6.1991 in N.K. No. 3229/91 sent to the 2nd respondent. The said communication directs the second respondent to cancel to appointments given to the petitioners on the ground that the said appointments are made without getting the cadre strength fixed under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and without conducting the interviews through a committee appointed with the permission of the Deputy Registrar. It is also stated in the communication that the second respondent has failed to abide by the directions given in the communications of the Deputy Registrar bearing No. N.K. 2596/91 dated 11.2.1991 and 18.2.1991. The contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners are that the second respondent has powers to appoint staff to the cooperative ...
S. Ramachandran, M.L.A. Vs. Hon'ble Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad332
ORDER1. The petitioner is a sitting M.L.A. of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. He has been elected from the Pantuti Assembly Constituency as a Pattalai Makkalkatchi (hereinafter referred to as P.M.K.) candidate in the general elections held in June 1991. The petitioner was the only member of the P.M.K. party elected to the Assembly and he had been representing the said party in the Assembly since June 1991. According to the petitioner, an extraordinary General Meeting of the P.M.K. party was held at Panruti on 5-12-1993 wherein the nominated office bearers were removed and the petitioner was elected unanimously as the President of the party and Thiru Nellikuppam Krishnamoorthy was unanimously elected as the General Secretary of the P.M.K. Party. On 6-12-1993, the newly elected office-bearers sent a communication to the Hon'ble Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the first respondent herein informing him of the change of office-bearers of the P.M.K. Party also with a ...
Mailsami Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2238
ORDER1. The accused in C.C. No. 1376/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palani, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under section 417, I.P.C. on the allegations that 10 months prior to 15-6-90, at Andinaickanvalasu village, the accused and victim Minnalkodi loved each other that accused had sexual intercourse with Minnalkodi with her consent by promissing her that he would marry her and Minnalkodi became pregnant and thereafter the accused refused to marry her and thus cheated her. 3. Mr. Hajee P. K. Jamal Mohamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that (i) on the evidence available on record, no offence under section 417 is made out. He would submit that the date of offence is not given; but only approximately stated that even as per the first information report, the accus...
T.P.K. Ramalingam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Mad)99; [1995]211ITR520(Mad)
1. The Tribunal has referred for the decision of this court the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the penalty in the background of the various estimates by various valuer with differing results?' 2. The brief facts leading to the above reference may now be noted. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 11,251 on March 6, 1972. During the year in question, the assessee had constructed four shops and he has shown the cost of construction as per books in a sum of Rs. 15,337. The Income-tax Officer. However, was of the view that the cost of construction he has shown in the books of account was on the low side. On that view, the Income-tax Officer directed the assessee to submit an estimate of the cost of construction supported by a ...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, C. Ex., Madras-i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT826(Mad)
ORDER1. The Writ Petitions lie in a narrow campus and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it is agreed between the parties that the same can be disposed of by saying what seems to be the obvious. In these three Writ Petitions, the price lists have been provisionally assessed disallowing certain abatements claimed by the assessee. After saying so, the order proceeds to say that the assessees are requested to furnish the necessary bonds with sufficient securities/sureties, if any for the provisional assessments ordered in the above manner. The petitioner apparently had an apprehension that this would amount to the authority holding that the price-list as furnished by the assessees were not acceptable to the proper officer and therefore a question of payment under protest may arise under rule 173 (Sic.). It is made clear that such a payment under protest does not arise and what is needed from the petitioner is the furnishing of proper bonds, as required under Rule 9-B o...
S.P. Sabapathi Pillai Vs. M. Durga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad13
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. 332/92 on the file of Appellate Authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), in which the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and set aside the order in RCOP. 1462/88 passed by the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) and thereby had allowed the petition.2. Short facts are :The respondent has filed RCOP. No. 1462/88 against the petitioner for eviction under Section 10(2)(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows:--The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of non-residential building bearing Door No. 9/1, Srinivasa Road, T. Nagar for the purpose of running a hotal on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The respondent was carrying the hotel business under the name and style of 'Vijayalakshmi Tiffin Centre'. In the second week of April,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Publications Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR397(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. Pursuant to an order of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the repair charges of Rs. 15,904 on the car belonging to the wife of the director should be allowed as business expenditure of the assessee? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that such expenditure was not capital in nature and that it was a revenue expenditure relating to the business of the assessee?' 2. The brief facts leading to the reference may now be noted. 3. One V. D. Narayanan was one of the directors of the respondent-company during the relevant period. He was discharging the day-to-day work regarding the publication of the newspapers. On June 16, 1972, there was some commotion and riot in the business premises of the assessee-compa...
Mayilanandam, Income-tax Officer Vs. Selvam Brothers and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR385(Mad)
Swamidurai J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 485 of 1987 is filed against the judgment made in C.C. No. 110 of 1986 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and Criminal Revision Case No. 486 of 1987 is filed against the judgment made in C.C. No. 111 of 1986 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. In both the cases, respondents Nos. 1 to 8 who are the accused have been charged under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Private complaints were filed separately by the Income-tax Officer, Madurai, against the accused. The short facts of the case in C.C. No. 110 of 1986 are as follows : The first accused is Messrs. Selvam Brothers, a partnership-firm, doing business in iron and other materials at Keezha Masi Street, Madurai. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the partners in the abovesaid first accused firm. The...
Sri Rangavilas Motor Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR34(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. Pursuant to an order of this Court in TCP No. 271 of 1971, dt. 12th Nov., 1979, the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the write off for the purpose of the claim of bad debt under s. 36(2) of the Act should be made when the assessee makes up his accounts for the first time and not later on at any time before the assessment was completed (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material, for the Tribunal to hold that the amount had not become irrecoverable in the year of accounting ?' 2. On the facts, the Tribunal has found that the assessee filed a revised return for the year 1967-68 on 26th March, 1972, whereas the assessment order for that year was passed on 25th March, 1972. That being the position on which there is no dispute, the claim for write off having not been in accordance with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »