Chennai Court April 1994 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR625(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. In these two tax references, a common question of law arises, which relates to the same assessee, but for different assessment years, namely, 1969-70 and 1972-73. The amounts involved also differ. 2. In Tax Case No. 1178 of 1980, the question of law referred to this court reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,69,534 being the cost of shares should not be excluded from the computation of capital for levy of surtax by applying rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 3. In Tax Case No. 1392 of 1980, the question of law referred to this court reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,81,684 being the cost of shares should not be excluded from the computation of capital for levy of surtax by ap...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Tvs Whirlpool Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC49; 1994(74)ELT496(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. As the respondent has put in appearance, we have heard both sides for the final disposal of this appeal itself. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 4-2-1994 passed in writ petition 14244 of 1992. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition in the following terms :- 'From the above extract in the counter-affidavit, it will be seen that there is no averment to the effect that if the amount is paid now to the petitioner, it will be difficult for the respondents in the event the Department's appeal before the Tribunal is allowed, to recover the same. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application, holding that the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal of the petitioner applying its earlier order. There is no suggestion that against the earlier order, any further action was taken to get the same reversed. However, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Department may be given the right to go into the question of unjust enri...
Tag this Judgment!M. Loganathan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT281(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner Loganathan and Shiva Narayan, who have been arrayed as A3 and A2 respectively along with 11 others, charged with offences punishable under section 8(c) read with 21, 23, 25 and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS' Act in C.C. No. 24 of 1994 on the file of the special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Salem, who were arrested and lodged to judicial custody, have come forward with these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the occurrence involved in the whole case relating to both the petitioners along with others is one and the same and the points taken are common, with the consent of the Bar, I am disposing both these petitions, by passing this common order. 2. The conspectus of the facts is that at or about 11-45 A.M. on 15-5-1993 while the respondent was having a surveillance for the persons accused of the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act on intelligence spotted a light bl...
Tag this Judgment!Jambagalakshmi Krishnan Vs. P.C. Martin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ563
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. These two original side appeals arise out of a common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in C.S. No. 232 of 1981 dated 7.6.1984.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 166 of 1985 and the first defendant is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 9 of 1986. The appellant P.C. Martin in O.S.A. No. 166 of 1985 instituted a suit on the original side of this Court for specific performance of contract for sale against the defendants. The first defendant has filed O.S.A. No. 9 of 1986 against the impugned judgment insofar as the counter-claim made by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff was not decreed in its entirety.3. The respective pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants are summarised by the learned trial Judge which are as follows:The plaint mentioned house belongs to the first defendant and the second defendant who is the husband of the first defendant. The house was newly constructed and the plaintiff was put in possession of the same as...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Nazeer Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3318
ORDER1. The facts are that on 18-12-1993, while a Maruti car driven by the petitioner herein along with three others was intercepted by the respondent and checked up, it was found to contain contraband of 5 kgs. of Ganja, a substance notified under the N.D.P.S. Act, and 15 bags of illicit distilled arrack chests, which were seized under the cover of Mawhazar followed by the interrogation and recording the statement of the petitioner and securing of the other three accused subsequently. A case was registered for the offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act by the respondent and the case is being investigated. The only contention strenuously place before me, by Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner was arrested on 18-12-1993 and committed to judicial custody, till now the respondent has not completed the investigation and laid the final report within the maximum ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sandhya Sankaranarayanan Vs. Commissioner of Police, Egmore and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)671; 1994CriLJ2577
ORDER1. The complainant in Crime No. 2235/92 on the file of Central Crime Branch, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. for a direction for further investigation in the said case by any Inspector of Police, other than Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police, Madras. 2. Short facts are, on the complaint given by the petitioner and registered in Crime No. 2235/92, the second respondent had investigated the case and has filed the charge-sheet against Sankaranarayanan, for offence under sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. alleging that the investigation made by the second respondent viz. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madras 6, was deliberately deficient, this petition is filed for further investigation. 3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The petitioner was studying in Queen Marrys College in 1974. Sankaranarayanan wa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.M. Sizing Centre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR1045(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law, at the instance of the Revenue, for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has the right to have the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, recomputed by reckoning borrowed capital as part of the capital base for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?' 2. The Tribunal, to answer the question in favour of the assessee, has observed as follows : 'This Tribunal, on further appeal by the assessee, had followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Bluemount Ceramics Ltd. : [1980]123ITR385(Mad) to hold that the assessee was entitled to have the relief correctly computed in the year of set-off and adverted to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Sheetalaya : [1979]117ITR658(All) , besides the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Manmohan Das : [1966]...
Tag this Judgment!K. Anbazhagan Vs. M. Kannappan and 10 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC47
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff in his affidavit contends briefly as follows:-The applicant has filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction in his capacity as the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, herein after called the DMK party, which is a political party recognised by the Election Commission of Inida. The applicant is the General Secretary of the party having been elected continuously for the fourth time, since 1977. He was elected by its present General Council, which is the 9th General Council, at its first meeting after the party elections, as per Rule 18(3) of the Rules and Regulations governing the party. The members of the General Council are elected as per Rule 18(2) of the party Constitution. The 9th General Council at its first meeting on 2.6.1992 elected Thiru M. Karuhanidhi, as President, the applicant as the General Secretary and Mr. S.J. Sadiq Basha as the Treasurer. The General Council of the DMK party had elected Thiru. M...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanasundaram and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Law and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2487
ORDER1. The accused in C.C. 397/89 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, have 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 offences punishable under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 5(1)(a), 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'SIT Act') and under section 353 I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : On 21-10-1987, A1 to A4 procured A7 for the purpose of prostitution and brought her to Room No. 7 of the Circuit House for prostitution, after paying Rs. 1,000/- to A7, A5 and A6, who are employees of the Circuit House, allowed the other accused for the said purpose. At about 7.00 p.m., the police party searched the above room, when A5 and A6 were found to be watching, from outside the room. It was found that A1 was havi...
Tag this Judgment!V. Somu Gounder Vs. S. Natesa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ382
ORDERThangamani, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi in I.A. No. 626 of 1993 in O.S. No. 93 of 1988 on his file. The respondent/plaintiff instituted that suit for declaration and possession in respect of the property measuring 11 cents on the western part of his land include Survey No. 97/1, New Survey No. 897/7 of Thethakudi village. During the pendency of the suit he came forward with an application in I.A. No. 1360 of 1990 under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. for the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note the physical features and submit his report. It appears that the Commissioner has accordingly executed the warrant and submitted his report on 30.12.1991. Thereafter he filed I.A. No. 626 of 1993 another application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. for the very same purpose. This was resisted by the defendant for the reason that that petition without setting aside the earlier report of the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »