Chennai Court September 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.
Dindigul Anna District Tax Payers Sangam Represented by Its President, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ43
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1946 of 1994 and 3118 of 1994 is Dindigul Anna District Tax Payers Sangam represented by its President and they are filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the second respondent from enhancing the annual value of the property tax of the properties of the members of the petitioner's Sangam pursuant to the notice issued by the second respondent to the members of the petitioner sangam under Rule 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner in W.P. No. 2160 of 1994 is the Trichy Town Properties Owners Welfare Association represented by its President and the said writ petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that Rule 9-A of Schedule IV of the Taxation Rules hereinafter referred to as rules and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Madras-5, dated 21.6.1993 and the consequent...
Arul and Dominic Vs. Inspector of Police, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)319; 1995(75)ELT44(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are charged under Section 21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act for having been found in possession of 2 grams and 30 grams respectively of heroin powder. They seek bail under proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that no charge-sheet has yet been filed even though they are in custody for more than 90 days. They also plead that the delay in sending the property to Court entitles them to be released on bail. 2. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the failure of the prosecution to lay the charge-sheet within 90 days they have to be released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. They point out that under Section 167(2) no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody for a total period exceeding ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. And the accused person shall be released on bail if he...
T.S.R. and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT200(Mad)
ORDER1. Application, under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the Judgment of the High Court, dated 31-8-1989 and made in W. A. No. 947/85 preferred to this court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nainar Sundaram, dated 3-8-1985 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in W. P. No. 10250 of 1985 presented to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in C. No. V/14F/18/3/84, dated 31-7-1985 and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to refund the sum of Rs. 57,401.78 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.This Application coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition to Review and the order of this court, dated 31-8-1989 and made in W. A. No. 947/85 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. V. Subramanian, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Jay...
Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC442; (1995)IIMLJ413
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. The common question that arises for consideration in these C.R.Ps is as to whether the proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment in Rule 90, Order 21, of the Code of Civil procedure immediately after Sub-rule (I) thereof is inconsistent with the provisions contained in Rule 90, Order 21 of the Code Civil Procedure as amended by Central Act 104 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) the proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment is as follows:'Provided that the Court may after giving notice to the appellant call upon him before admitting the application either to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrent or to that realised by the sale, whichever is less or to deposit such amount in Court.'In view of the contrary opinions expressed in the decisions of this Court rendered by the learned single Judge, these cases have been referred to a Division Bench. In V. Ka...
V. Annasami and ors. Vs. V.K.R.K. Govindaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ196
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Invoking the inherent power of this Court, a direction to the second and third respondents being the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swami Temple, Kumarakottam, Kanchipuram and the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, respectively to remove the first respondent who is the Fit Person appointed to manage and look after the affairs of the temple above referred is sought for in this petition pending disposal of the above appeal.2. The short facts which have become necessary to effect the proper adjudication are extracted as here under:Four appellants herein are the plaintiffs before the trial court claiming that they are the hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swami Temple Kumarakottam situated at Kanchipuram filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs against the 3 respondents herein and after full trial partly succeeded and partly failed. Aggrieved at the said decision of the learned trial Judge, the pres...
Ramaswamy Gounder and ors. Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ413
ORDER1. The common question that arises for consideration in these C.R. Ps. is as to whether the proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment in Rule 90, Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure immediately after Sub-rule (1) thereof is inconsistent with the provisions contained in Rule 90, Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, by Central Act 104 of 1976 (herinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment is as follows:Provided that the Court may after giving notice to the appellant call upon him before admitting the application either to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court, for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or to that realised by the sale, whichever is less, or to deposit such amount in Court.In view of the contrary opinions expressed in the decisions of this Court rendered by the learned single Judges, these cases have been referred to a Division Bench. In V. Kannan v. Ha...
J.M. Malhotra and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas600(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. These appeals are preferred against the order dated July 25, 1994, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 2456 of 1994 and 4427 of 1994. There was another writ petition filed and all the writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and a common order was passed by the learned single judge. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2456 of 1994 and 4427 of 1994 have come up in appeals. 2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for declaring that section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is ultra vires and unconstitutional. This relief was sought for on the ground that section 20 of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The learned single judge has negatived the contention and rejected the writ petitions. 3. It is contended before us that section 20 of the Act imposes restriction on the exercise of jurisdiction by a High Court, that unbridled power is...
Panchu Arunachalam Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR733(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed to quash the proceedings, namely, C.C. No. 30 of 1992, pending on the file of the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, (E.O. II), Egmore, Madras. 2. The petitioner has been charged with the offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the complaint, the Income-tax Officer has alleged that the petitioner herein has suppressed his real income and Rs. 3,00,000 being the royalty amount which he received has been suppressed in the return filed by him and later on it was found that this income has not been shown in the return and, therefore, he is liable to be punished for the offences under the sections mentioned above. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that he has filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of assessment made by the C...
Civil Liberties Council Represented by Its Convener R.R. Dalavai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ59
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These writ petitions are filed as public interest litigations. The prayer in the first of the writ petitions is to declare that the resolution passed by the Madras Legislative Assembly on 4.4.1987 is ultra vires of the Constitution, illegal and as such null and void. The prayer in the other two writ petitions is to declare that the order dated 29.3.1987 of the Speaker of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly as communicated by letter dated 31.3.1987 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Assembly to Mr. S. Balasubramanian, Editor, Ananda Vikatan is unconstitutional and consequently the resolution dated 4.4.1987 of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly convicting and sentencing Mr. S. Balasubramanian as unconstitutional and void.2. When the writ petitions were pending Mr. S. Balasubramanian himself had filed W.P. Nos. 4202 and 4203 of 1987 challenging the validity of the resolution of the Assembly as well as the order of the Speaker and praying for compensation for the...
L. Vinayagam and Two ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC289
ORDERMishra, J.1. Petitioners herein have challenged a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the consequent declaration under Section 6 thereof on the ground that as declared, the public purpose is the creation of a new neighborhood scheme known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Schemes, which is vague and thus never provided to the petitioner adequate opportunity to object to the acquisition. The notification states,'Whereas it appears to the Government of Tamilnadu that the lands specified below, are needed for a purpose, to wit, for the creation of a new neighborhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Schemes, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894); and the Governor of Tamilnadu hereby authorises the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)State Ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »