Chennai Court January 1995 Judgments
Dr. Veerabagu Vs. Devaraj (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3148
ORDER1. This Revisions is against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P. No. 2721 of 1992 rejecting the petition of the revision petitioner to discharge him exonerating the charge under Section 338, Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is a Dentist working in ESI Hospital at Coimbatore. The respondent herein, who is a minor boy, had swelling on the left side of his cheek on account of the decaying of a tooth and as his father was entitled to the treatment in the ESI Hospital, the minor boy as a dependent son, approached the revision petitioner for treatment. The allegation is that the revision petitioners, instead of extracting he decayed tooth on the left side cheek, extracted the healthy tooth on the right side, causing great inconvenience to the minor boy. He filed complaint before the police for necessary action against the petitioner herein but as his complaint to the police was not effective he filed the private complaint before the learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Chidambaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR175(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. After going through the statement of the case and the order of the Tribunal and considering the relevant facts and the principles of law, we are persuaded to refrain from making any order to provide the answer to the questions referred to us. How, in a given case, necessary information for invoking section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applied has been settled by now by authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and it is contended at the Bar that the audit report which only will point out a mistake in law, since the auditors are not interpreters of law, their interpretation will not be furnishing the necessary information. In case, however, any omission in respect of any income as pointed out, whether it comes through the audit report or otherwise, it is obvious, the same shall furnish necessary information to satisfy the requirements of the reopening of assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's order in this behalf, it is conce...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Suppliers Private Ltd. Vs. Syed Hameed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC311
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only question before us is whether the Court in Madras has jurisdiction to deal with the suit filed by the respondent herein.2. The respondent sent a letter dated June 20, 1983 referring to the discussions which it had on 18th and 19th of June and confirmed, having agreed to supply earth to the appellant for filling job on the terms and conditions set out therein. In the last paragraph, it is stated as follows:'I hope you will find the above in order. I have to request you to kindly furnish me your letter of confirmation along with advance money to enable me to start supplies'.The appellant sent a reply on June 25, 1983 in its letter head. The Body of the letter reads thus,'We are in receipt of your questions dated 20th June 1983. We have the pleasure of confirming your quotation. We enclose herewith our Demand Draft No. 979813-2560/83 dated 25th instant for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards advance payment. Kindly acknowledge receipt, hand over the property documents an...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Mohan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC484; 1996ACJ1151
M. Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of parties. The insurance company is the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the claimant himself, who was driving the autorickshaw involved in the accident and, therefore, he cannot claim any compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The learned Tribunal has found that the accident was an act of God and an inevitable one. On that footing, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an award, granting compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the claimant.3. We are unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was an act of God. There is ample evidence on the record to prove that the accident was caused only because of the negligence of the claimant himself. In the first information report, given to the police immediately after the accident, by a passenger, it is specifically stated that as the auto driver Mohan drove ...
Tag this Judgment!Virudhunagar Sarvodaya Sangh, Virudhunagar Vs. S. Sathiyathinakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC318; [1995(70)FLR973]
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 1992, on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court, Sattur, is the revision petitioner. The defendant is an Institution known as Virdhunagar Sarvodaya Sangh. It is aggrieved by the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 1582 of 1993 filed by it. By virtue of the order, the Court below has held that it has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and that there is no statutory bar in proceeding with the suit. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The plaintiff is an employee of the defendant-Sangh. There was some departmental proceeding against him, and on the basis of some enquiry, the plaintiff was suspended as per order dated 28-2-1992. The plaintiff in the suit challenges the order of suspension on the grounds that the enquiry officer to conducted the enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice, that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him, and the proceedings are vitiated for various reasons m...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal Reddiar Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ648
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, dated 12.8.1988 reducing the upset price in respect of the property which has been brought for sale, to Rs. 35,000.2. The revision petitioner would argue that the property is worth Rs. 1,04,000 and the learned District Munsif has reduced the same to Rs. 35,000 in an application filed under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the principle to be followed in an application under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the decree-holder has filed an application to bid at the auction and it was also allowed and the net result of the order passed by the learned District Munsif would enable the decree-holder to grab the property for a very low price and it has to be set aside in this revision. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that when the property is br...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal Boat Club Represented by Its Hon. Secretary Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ596
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Kodaikanal Boat Club, a registered society represented by its Honorary Secretary (hereinafter referred to as the Club) is the petitioner in this writ petition. The same has been filed to call for the records of the 4th respondent/ Executive Officer, Kodaikanal Township in his proceedings ROC No. 7542/86/E-1 dated 29.5.1987 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 4th respondent from insisting the petitioner to obtain licence and payment of licence fee for plying its boats in the Kodaikanal Lake.2. In the year 1863 Sir Vir Henry Levenge, a retired Collector of Madurai, converted the then existing swamp into a beautiful lake, which turned out to be a major attraction for Kodaikanal. In the year 1890, the Club was founded with the object of serving the needs of the local resident and visitors to Kodai Hills. Till the year 1926, only Europeans were allowed to be members and only after 1926 Indians were admitted as members of the Club. On 12.10.1906, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Dawood Ammal Vs. Muniammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad369
ORDER1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition, the orders of the lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. Hema Sonpath, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. S. V. Jayaraman, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following order :The fourth defendant in O. S. No. 73 of 1991 on the file of the sub-Court, Ramanatha-puram at Madurai at is the petitioner in this revision petition against the order dated 8-8-1994 in I.A. No. 362 of 1993 in the said suit. The said suit was filed by the four plaintiffs that is one Gurunathan, the second plaintiff and the other plaintiffs who are his mother, sister and grand-mother. When the said suit was dismissed for default of appearance of the plaintiffs on 29-4-1993, the second plaintiff Gurunathan alone has filed the above said I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for setting aside the dismissal of the above said suit. Though the cause title of the impugned orders shows that all the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar P. Baldota Vs. Collector of Central Ex., Bangalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT465(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-7-1986. That order was passed on an appeal filed by the petitioners against an order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, dated 27-6-1985 absolutely confiscating 707.880 grams of gold in the form of 12 crude bangles, exercising power under Section 71(1) of the Gold Control Act and further levying a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on one of the petitioners and Rs. 10,000/- on the other petitioner under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act. 12. The facts leading to the above confiscation are as follows : On 2-7-1984 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Unit intercepted the first petitioner. A search of the first petitioner resulted in recovery of the subject gold bangles. Since the first petitioner was not a licenced gold dealer nor a certified gold-smith, the gold was seized under a mahazar. The explanation of the first petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramar Udayar and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC349
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The decree holder and auction purchaser in O.S.No. 839 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirukoilur, are the revision petitioners.2. The respondent in this Case is the Official Receiver. The matter arises in execution wherein the respondent filed E.A.I 103 of 1984 in E.P.No. 429 of 1980 in the said suit, for setting aside the sale.3. The relevant facts are as follows:The first Petitioner herein filed O.S.No. 438 of 1978 on 20.6.1978. The suit was filed for recovery of money. One Ayyan Padayachi had borrowed certain amount from the first petitioner herein, for family expense. The suit was filed after the death of the borrower, and the defendants in the suit were his legal representatives, Namely, sons and daughters. One of the sons was Pavadai Padayachi.4. The suit was decreed on 25.10.1979, allowing the first petitioner herein to realise the amount from out of the estate of the deceased in the hands of his legal representatives.5. In executi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »