Chennai Court April 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.
Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad78
ORDER1. At the outset I make it clear that I am dealing with only the preliminary objection, orally raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. I do not therefore propose to go into the merits of the case or the correctness of the allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner or whether those allegations, even if proved, would entitle the petitioner to have the relief sought for in this writ petition. Since the matter has been argued elaborately, it is but proper, that I should set out the necessary pleadings and sequence of events which led to the raising of the preliminary objection, orally.2. The writ petition was filed on 9-3-1994 and the Rule Nisi was issued on 11-3-1994. In W.M.P. No. 6669 of 1994 seeking an injunction restraining the second respondent from discharging his duties, notice was ordered on 11-3-1994. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to remove the second respon...
R.S. Kandasamy and Others Vs. New Jothi Match Industries, Raghankottai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad73
1. Parties herein are manufacturers of safety matches. As per the present respondent which is a partnership concern it is well known for the quality and has got a wide market in upper India. It is marketing its product with the label written in Hindi as 'MANDAK' and with FROG as symbol. The said trade-mark is also registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks. The sales of the respondent picked up during 1981-83. The consumers are mostly illiterate and when they demand the product they have in mind the colour and design of 'MANDAK'. After the sales picked up, with a view to attract the consumers and to assure quality, the respondent firm introduced a colour design of special type. The firm designed and printed its trade mark with a dark blue background and organge red border in a rectangular shape. The letter 'R' was printed with a circle near the figure Frog in order to assure the consumer that the label has been registered under the Act. The design and scheme of colour are the respond...
R. Parasuraman Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad242
ORDER1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed in F.A. No. 43 of 1986 in E.A. No. 49/84 in E.P. No. 4 of 1983 in O.S. No. 512/1979 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore and E.A. No. 46 of 1986 inF.A. No. 51 of 1984 in E.P. No. 5 of 1983 in O.S. No. 516 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court. Vellore, respectively.2. The Short facts are the Revision petitioner has field E.A. No. 45 of 1986 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of three days in filing the Petition to restore E.A. No. 49 fo 1984 which was dismissed for default. That was opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is no provision to execuse the delay and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings in execution. After enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by that order, CRP. No. 3216 of 1987 is filed.3. The revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 46 of 1986 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandrie and Company (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR63(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 24,000, paid to the ex-working director, S. Venkataraman, was an admissible deduction under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference stated briefly are : The assessee, a private limited company, while computing the total income of the company for the assessment year 1971-72 claimed deduction of the sum of Rs. 24,000 said to be the gratuity paid to its ex-working director, Sri S. Venkataraman. This claim, though initially allowed by the Income-tax Officer, was subsequently withdrawn by him after reassessment made pursuant to an audit note. The claim was disallowed on the ground that the payment of gratuity to the director was an ex gratia payment; that at the time the director joined service, he had no expectation of receiv...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.M. Meenakshisundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Mad)329; [1995]212ITR220(Mad)
Jayasimha Basu, J. 1. Pursuant to the order of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to us for our decision : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was carrying on money-lending business and that the interest income should be assessed only under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'Other sources' 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee carried on money-lending business could be said to be based on material on record 3. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the interest income is to be assessed as business income could be regarded as reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?' 2. The relevant facts leading to the reference may now be set out. The income returned by the assessee, who was an individual and a minor at the relevant time, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 ...
Ramachandran Vs. the Inspector of Police, H. 3 Police Station, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3722
Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner's son, Venkat alias Venkatesan aged, according to him, about 16 years, has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, dated 19-8-1993. He has been so detained, for according to the respondents, it has become necessary to detain him under S. 3(1) of the Act with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has, as has been noticed in the memorandum of grounds that has been served upon him on 19-8-1993, a history of having been involved in a case of murder, which is pending trial in C.C. No. 4726 of 1993 (H-5 New Washermanpet P.S. Crime No. 730 of 1993) allegedly committed on 20-5-1993 at about 6-15 hours at V.O.C. Nagar, 60th Block Madras, in w...
A. Dharmarajan Vs. Collector of Kamarajar Dist., Virudhunagar, Kamaraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3585
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. All these matters are inter-connected. Therefore, the learned single Judge has heard them together and decided them by a common order. 2. Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1994 arises out of the Contempt application No. 363 of 1993 filed by the respondents in W.M.P. No. 6943/93 in W.P. No. 3565 of 1993, on the ground that the appellant herein had violated the interim order passed in the writ petition, in that he had quarried fresh materials contrary to the interim order. The learned learned single Judge has found against the appellant and held that the appellant has contravened the interim order and has accordingly, by way of punishment, deprived the appellant of the benefit of the order dated 12-1-1993 passed by the District Collector, Kamarajar District. Hence, the appeal. Even in the absence of the order of punishment, the full benefit of the order dated 12-1-1993 is also not available to the appellant, in view of the fact that the learned single judge has held that the or...
T.E. Vijayaraghavachari and anr. Vs. K. Srinivasaraghavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ162
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Revision petitioners are defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 106 of 1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. The respondent/plaintiff is a devotee and honourary serivce holder of Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram whose Executive Trustee is the 6th defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that during Brahmotsavam days, there is a custom long usage prevailing in the temple in connection with the performance of honour to idols of Alwars and Acharyas consecrated inside the temple. In the year 1988 one Seshadhri third defendant in the suit applied to the sixth defendant to have a Mandagapadi in the place called Sri Ahobila Mutt, wherein the idols of certain Acharyas belonging to Vadakalai sect, are consecrated. This was objected to by the member belonging to the Thenkalai sect, of Vaishanavites and so the third defendant filed an application before the-second defendant the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. seeking permission to perform...
Mariyayee Ammal Vs. Vadamalai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ462
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The respondents in the civil revision petition are cultivating 1 acre 92 cents in S.F. No. 24/2 of Nachikurichi village belonging to the revision petitioner. The latter instituted O.S. No. 362 of 1988 in the Court of Sub Judge of Trichy for recovery for a sum of Rs. 23,068 due to her by way of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the respondents filed I.A. No.l33 of 1992 under Section 5(2) or under Seection 7(2), of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1990 seeking to deposit the arrears of rent with prayer to dismiss the suit. The revision petitioner resisted that application contending that since the respondents have raised plantain crops without her prior consent, she has filed the suit for damages only. There was no privity of contract between them for raising plantain crops. Simply because they have filed an application under Act 38of 1990, before the Revenue Court, they cannot be absolved of their liability to pay the suit amount. The deposit before the Revenue ...
Velur D. Narayanan Vs. General Manager, Madras Telephones, Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad290
ORDER1. Petitioner, a practising advocate is the subscriber of Telepone No. 612665. Being aggrieved by the demand made by 1st respondent under the bill dated 7-9-1984 for payment of Rs. 1959.75, this writ petition has been filed to have the said bill quashed. During the pcndencey of this petition, the petitioner paid to the bill under protest.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay this amount as the amount claimed is grossly disproportionate to the number of calls made from this telephone during the period to which the bill relates.3. The respondent has filed a counter contesting among other things, that the petitioner should be directed to avail of the remedy provided under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act (hereinafter called as the Act) and that a writ petition is not the proper remedy for resolving the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.4. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have contended that the calling pattern on the subject ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »