Chennai Court August 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.
Visalakshi Nadar and anr. Vs. S.K. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ95
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners herein. They are in occupation of two shops belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 160 for each shop. The respondent herein is a tenant in a rented premises under one Muthu at No. 22, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar, Madras. The respondent is doing his business in the said rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Hence he required the shops under the occupation of the tenants for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein sent a notice dated 6.6.1987 to the petitioners herein calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession. In spite of the said notice, they have not handed over possession. Hence according to the respondent herein he established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.2. In the counter the tenants stated as under:It is not correct to state that the landlord required the p...
The Registrar, High Court and anr. Vs. T. Velumurugaian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ277
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent herein was a Deputy Registrar in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. He was transferred and posted as Head Clerk, Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli by an order of this Court dated 17.1.1994. The respondent filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 1233 of 1994, on 21.1.1994. It was admitted by a learned single Judge of this Court on 25.1.1994. In the petition for stay, notice was ordered and it was directed to be posted on 31.1.1994. The matter was actually posted on 3.2.1994, but did not reach on that date. It was heard on 4.2.1994 and interim stay was granted by the learned single Judge. The Government Pleader who represented the appellants herein prayed for time to file counter and the matter was adjourned to 14.2.1994. But even before that the appellants filed a petition to vacate the interim stay and got in listed on 11.2.1994. On that date, the learned single Judge after hearing the parties, passed an order that the first appellant herein...
Anamalai Bus Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR705(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee as well as the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for our opinion : Questions referred to us in Tax Cases Nos. 1150 and 1151 of 1981 : '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the acquisition of the transport division of fleet operators under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition Act XXXVII of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Acquisition Act'), is a compulsory acquisition and can be termed as acquisition under a 'law for the time being in force' 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that as the acquisition took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the fact that the compensation was determined in the subsequent assessment year will not affect the assessability in the year in which acquisition took place, viz., 1972-73 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstan...
M.S.M. Company (Paints) and Others Vs. T. Govindarajan, Income-tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR596(Mad)
Rengaswamy J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1094 of 1990 in C.C. No. 66 of 1990 refusing to discharge the petitioners under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. These petitioners stand charged before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, coimbatore, under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276C, 277, 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for fabrication of the accounts suppressing the real income to the tune of Rs. 2,79,965. The leaned Magistrate recorded the evidence under section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, to find out the prima facie case and after the evidence, these petitioners filed a petition to discharge them under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, as no prima facie case has been made out by the complainant. The learned magistrate disagreeing with the petitioners' version had dismissed the petition. In this revision, challenging that order...
Rajan Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR335(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions given by this court in T.C.P. Nos. 198 and 199 of 1980 dated November 3, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in apportioning the claim under section 35B for the two assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to the full deduction of the expenditure under section 35B having regard to the fact that the entire activity of the applicant was export business 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the commission on exports paid in India is not entitled to relief under section 35B 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing any portion of export freight and shipping ?' 2. The references relate to the assessme...
Reliance Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR733(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking our opinion on the following question of law : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled for relief under section 80G of the Income-tax Act in respect of donation of Rs. 20,000 each made by it to S. Rm. Ct. M. Tiruppani Trust for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?' 2. There is no dispute that the assessee donated the amount mentioned above to S. Rm. Ct. M. Tiruppani trust during the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 and claimed benefit in relation thereto under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the trust to which the donation has been made was not a charitable trust pure and simple but the object of the trust included religious purposes also and the said trust had not applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax for recognition of the trust under section 80G ...
Maria Mercy Virgenia Vs. Lazar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC579
Srinivasan, J.1. The petition by wife is filed under Sections 22 and 23 of the Indian Divorce Act. But the prayer in the petition is one for grant of divorce, though there is no allegation of any adultery in the petition and the allegations made in the petition speak only of cruelty. In the evidence, the petitioner has only spoken about the cruelty and she has not whispered about adultery. However, the learned District Judge, after accepting the evidence of P.W. 1, has granted a decree for divorce as prayed for in the petition.2. That decree for divorce is obviously not sustainable. Under Section 10 no decree for divorce can be granted on the ground of cruelty, but there should be adultery coupled with cruelty. Cruelty must be such as would entitle the petitioner to get divorce mensa et toro. In this case, what all the petitioner has proved is only curelty which will entitle her to a decree for judicial separation. Hence, the decree for divorce has to be set aside. As laid down by the ...
R. Amirda Amalraj Vs. Thamima
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC191
Srinivasan, J.1. The original petition is for divorce on the ground of adultery. According to the petitioner, after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and after one and a half years a son was born on 25-8-1984. The child was born at Neela Nursing Home at Nanganallur, Saidapet Taluk. After the birth of the son, the respondent lived together with the petitioner's parents at Ramapuram, thereafter they shifted to Mangalmanagar, Mugalivakkam near Porur, Saidapet Taluk from 1-10-1985 as desired by the respondent. The child was left in the custody of the parents of the petitioner as both the petitioner and the respondent were emloyed and had to go to office in the morning and return in the evening. The respondent without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner left the house and took away with her the male child from the parents' house of the petitioner in the middle of October, 1985. Thereafter she refused to return in spite of several attempts made by the petitioner. ...
Dr. T. Rajendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ615
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:To issue a writ of certiorarifted mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records in respect of the impugned order Ref. No. 73431/MEII/l/93 dated 6.9.1993 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner in D.M. (Nephrology) Course in the Madras Medical College in the service candidate seat for 1993-94.2. Under the impugned proceedings dated 6.9,1993, Dr. S. Ramakrishnan, formerly Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, undergoing D.M. (Neurology) Course in 1992-93 session at Madras Medical College, Madras-3, was permitted to join the D.M. Nephrology course in 1993-94 session immediately at the Madras Medical College, Madras-3, as per his request. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. According to the petitioner, he appeared for the entrance examination for 1993-94 higher speciality post ...
S. Rajan Vs. State Asst. Collector of Customs (intelligence) Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1594
1. This appeal arises against the conviction and sentence of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai in S.C. No. 110 of 1988 dated 20-9-88 for the offences under S. 8(c) read with S. 23, Section 28 read with Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and S. 135(1)(a)(11) of the Customs Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine Rs. 1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The prosecution case is as follows :- P.W. 1 was Superintendent in Customs Department in Rameswaran and on 5-10-87, on information, he along with the Inspectors of the Customs P.Ws. 3 and 4, proceeded to the jetty in Rameswaran. About 50' away from the Customs checking place, he found the appellant coming towards the jetty with M.O. 1 bag in his hands. He wanted to interrogate him and therefore took him inside the checking premises and sent for two independent witnesses to examine the appellant. P.W. 7 and another Sugumar we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »