Chennai Court August 1994 Judgments
S. Mohanraj Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas505(Mad); 1995CriLJ3018; 1996(53)ECC74; 1995(75)ELT251(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamad, J.1. The petitioner herein in the affidavit in support of the writ petition has stated that in the course of investigation, the respondent seized the passports in H. 214990 and A. 138238 on October 15, 1992, under section 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is further stated that the said passports have not been returned to the petitioner and the petitioner is not in any way connected with the alleged offence under the Act. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that the passports were seized under section 38 of the Act in the course of investigation and there is a prima facie case that the petitioner is involved in violation of the provisions of the Act, and in particular, on investigation into two foreign currency accounts alleged to have been held by the petitioner with the UCO Bank, Singapore, and the Development Bank, Singapore, and the investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Gounder and Others Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3390
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-8-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13442 of 1994. Of course, the learned single Judge has decided a batch of writ petitions by the common order under a appeal; W.P. No. 13442 of 1994 was one of them. The petitioners and several others challenged the validity of S. 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Central Act 33 of 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the provisions contained therein are violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has held that the provisions contained in S. 18 of the Act are not violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution; accordingly, the writ petition in question along with several other connected writ petitions has been dismissed. 2. Having regard to the contentions urged before us, the following point arises for consideration : 'Whether the provisions contained i...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR396(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question was referred to us for our opinion for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in the disallowing a sum of Rs. 60,000 representing pension paid to the widow of late Sri Anantharamakrishnan ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. 3. The facts which are necessary for decision of this court on the aforesaid question are as under : The late Anantharamakrishnan was the founder director of the assessee-company and it stopped charging any salary with effect from April 1, 1952. It appears that prior to the aforesaid date he was a petty contractor involved in the management of the company. After April 1, 1952, he became the chairman of the company and did not get any salary. The assessee-company, after his death, passed a resolution and decided to pay a pension of Rs. 5,000 per moth to the widow of the said Anantharamakrishn...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maschmeijer Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Mad)221; [1995]214ITR22(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Department requiring this court to answer the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs standing in the balance-sheet as goodwill should be excluded from the computation of capital for the purpose of levy of surtax ?' 2. This question arises for consideration for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. 3. It appears that the assessment for the aforesaid years was completed by the Income-tax Officer by adding the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the capital of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee had entered into a collaboration arrangement with a Dutch company and is manufacturing synthetic musk and perfumery compounds. The foreign company, Messrs. Maschmeijer Aromatics, has permitted its technical know-how to be supplied to be used by the assessee. They have also permitted the use of their patent trademark, design, certification mark...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Thangapandian Vs. Jayapal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ71
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This revision was heard as the Bar for respective parties requested to dispose the main revision itself along with miscellaneous petition as it fails within a short compass for consideration.2. The order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, PeriyakulaminI. A. No. 41 of l991 in O.S. No. 2 of 1987 on 1.10.1992 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision which has emerged from an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by and on behalf of the revision petitioner herein who is the first defendant in the suit. The two respondents herein filed a suit O.S. No. 2 of 1987 before the trial court under 0.7, Rule 1, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the relief of framing a scheme for the administration of the Theni Chatram Trust and its properties and removing defendants 1 to 4 from trusteeship and along with the suit they have filed a petition and obtained the leave to sue as provided under Section 92 of the Code.3. Aggri...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thirumalainambi and ors. Vs. the Union Ministry for Social Welfare ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ171
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the petitioners, who belong to backward classes, can claim the benefit of age relaxation, absence of ceiling on the number of attempts in the competitive examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission as are extended to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The prayer in all these writ petitions is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the Union Public Service Commission relating to the Notification of Civil Services Examination, 1994,dated 1st January, 1994 and quashing the same and directing the respondents to afford the other Backward Communities equal treatment with regard to age relaxation and absence of ceiling on the number of attempts in the Competitive Examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission as are granted to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Of course, the actual prayer in the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Soma Naicker and ors. Vs. Veluchamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ108
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in I.A. No. 358 of 1994 in A.S. No. 275 of 1993, refusing permission to withdraw the suit under 0.23, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The revision petitioners filed a suit for injunction in respect of a cart-track on the basis that they are the co-owners of the cart-track. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Therefore, the revision petitioners have filed an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and during the pendency of this appeal, they filed I.A. No. 358 of 1994 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application holding that there is no formal defect in the pleading nor there is any acceptable reason to give liberty to withdraw the suit for filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying upon three decisions, namely, Sam...
Tag this Judgment!Selva Vinayagar Temple Vs. Karur Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad170
ORDER1. Heard both. This revision is filed to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur in I.A. No. 641 of 1993 in O.S. No. 1981 of 1991 dated 3-9-1993 allowing the said application to extend the time to pay the cost of Rs. 400/- by the respondent-Karur Munci-pality represented by its Commissioner till 2-9-1993 under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The brief facts, which led to this revision are stated as hereunder:-- The revision petitioner herein was the plaintiff before the trial court, who filed the suit against Karur Municipality, the respondent herein for the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the electricity service connection to a temple by name Selva Vinayagar temple Chinnandan Koil Village represented by its hereditary trustee. Since the electricity service connection provided to the same has already been washed away by the flood came to in the adjance river, this suit was necessitated on their declining to give p...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. K. Chinnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC140
Janarthanam, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife, while the respondent is the husband.The wife instituted proceedings claiming maintenance for herself under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as against her husband, which was taken on file as M.C. No. 12/89 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.2. On receipt of process, the husband entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice and resisted the maintenance claim.3. On consideration of the materials placed on record the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition.4. The aggrieved wife filed Crl. R.C.No. 88/93 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem who in turn, on consideration of the materials available on record, concurring with the findings of the Trial Magistrate, dismissed the revision.5. She resorted to the present action under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of learned Sessions Judge passed in the Criminal Revision case, confirming the order of the Trial M...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Labour Union Vs. Binny Ltd. (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas438(Mad); 1995(1)CTC73; (1995)ILLJ588Mad
Srinivasan J.1. The facts which are not in dispute can be briefly stated as follows : The Buckingham and Carnatic Mills is more than a century old and it has been working at Perambur in the city of Madras for the last 119 years. Till recently, it has been one of the biggest textiles mills in the whole of Asia, having an installed spindleage capacity of 88,208 spindles, of which 79,072 were utilised. It had an installed loom capacity of 2,074 looms out of which 1,816 looms were utilised. It has a 'dye house' or 'processing house' and a central power station. It forms part of a company by name Binny Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act in 1969 by amalgamation of the Binny group of companies comprising Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company (BWM), Binny and Co. Ltd. and Binny Engineering Works Limited together with two associate companies, viz., Madura Co. P. Ltd. and the Ganges Transport and Trading Co. Ltd. Their activities are broadly or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »