Chennai Court November 1995 Judgments
K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2938
ORDER1. Petitioner K.M. Rafiudeen alias Rafique, sons of Kajamoideen, preferred this Habeas Corpus petition on 7-9-1995 when he was detained in Central Prison, Madras, praying for issue of a habeas for production of himself and two others, Menakshisundaram alias Sundar and Setharaman, similarly remanded and kept in Central Prison, Madras, so that they could be set at liberty. He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of his prayer, he has stated that he was renamed to judicial custody on 31-8-1995 in R.R. No. 93/95 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egnore, Madras, at or about 7-15 p.m., along with Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar and Sethuraman. The remand report produced before the Magistrate pleading for judicial custody relies up...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Mohnot Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR555(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction direction the respondent herein to forbear from conduction the proceedings in pursuance of his letter Ref. No. C. No. 2093 of 1985-86 TN. V. dated August 6, 1985. 2. The writ petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. The brief contents of the same are as follows : The petitioner is a registered income-tax practitioner having a lucrative practice. He has been authorised to appear on behalf of the assessees before the various income-tax authorities and the Tribunals. He built up reputation and goodwill. On account of professional prejudice certain vested interests appear to have made false petitions to the officers against him, as a result of which a case has been registered against the petitioner by the C.B.I in which he was arrested and later released on bail and the matter is pending investigation. Again the Chief Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Govindan Vs. Venkatarama Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC592; (1996)IMLJ187
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.E.A. No. 23 of 1983 in R.E.P. No. 268 of 1970 in O.S. No. 594 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Dharmapuri.2. First respondent is the decree-holder and respondents 2 and 3 are the judgment-debtors. R.E.A. No. 23 of 1983 was filed for delivery of the property, which the petitioner herein purchased in court auction held on 15.3.1971 for a sum of Rs. 4,005. The sale was confirmed on 2.6.1971 and the sale certificate issued on 21.6.1971. R.E.A. No. 458 of 1972 was filed for delivery of possession on 2.3.1972. On 8.3.1972 an order was passed to deliver by 11.4.1972. Since there was obstruction, steps were directed to be taken for removal of obstruction. Since steps were not taken, R.E.A. No. 458 of 1972 was dismissed on 14.4.1972. R.E.A. No. 134 of 1973 was filed on 21.11,1972 and an order for directing delivery by 1.3.1973 after removing obstruction was passed, on 29.11.1973. On 7.3.1973 R.E...
Tag this Judgment!Loganathan Vs. Dhanalakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1896
ORDER1. Petitioner Loganathan is the husband of first respondent Dhanalakshmi and father of second respondent minor Sasikala. First respondent preferred M.C. No. 30/89, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Dindigul, claiming a monthly award of maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from her husband, the petitioner herein. 2. In the said petition, she has stated that she entered into matrimony with the petitioner herein on 30-3-1979. Of the said marriage Sasikala was born, who at the time of filing of the application for maintenance was aged about 9 years. According to her, after the birth of Sasikala, her husband coerced her to obtain money from her parents. He then drove her out of his house, after snatching away her jewellery and cash. Three weeks thereafter, he thought it fit to take her back to house. After living together for sometime, he sent her back to her father's house in the guise of fixing up a suitable house on rent...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sheemathangam, (Minor) Rep. by Her Grandmother and Guardian G. Than ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC54
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to select and admit the petitioner for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1995-96.3. The petitioner applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1995-96 claiming to be considered under special categories viz., (i) Seats reserved for children and grand children of freedom fighters and (ii) Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil language and significant contributions made to Tamil society, culture and literature.4. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the prospectus, all that was required by the petitioner to do was to produce a certificate issued by the persons ment...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma and anr. Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC284
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They filed a suit for partition as well as for recovery of maintenance. Plaintiffs are mother and son. The son being a minor, he is represented in the suit by his mother as his next friend. First defendant (first respondent herein) is the father of the minor.2. The point for consideration is limited to the question whether the minor son is entitled to partition.3. Both the Courts below have held that since natural guardian, father, is alive, she cannot compel a partition between father and son, but also held that the first defendant is liable to maintain them and that the plaintiffs are entitled to separate maintenance on the allegations put forth by them against the first respondent (first defendant). An amount of Rs. 300 per mensem was awarded as separate maintenance for them.4. The Courts below have also held that the minor plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the properties and it was also found ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Madharsha Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC165
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the common order dated 1.3.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 10227 and 10228 of 1992. The petitioner in W.P. 10228 of 1992 has come up in appeal.2. The Collector of the District declined to accept the bid offered by the petitioner and accordingly, refused to confirm the auction sale conducted on 30th September, 1991 in exercising his powers under Rule 8 (2) (c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1969 as it was in force at the relevant point of time. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the Collector has power to decline to accept the bid and refuse to confirm the auction sale, in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule 2(e) of Rule 8 of the Rules.3. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the appellant laid great stress on clause (g) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 then existed. The said clause reads thus:-'(g) If any person offers within ten days from the da...
Tag this Judgment!A. Semalai Gounder and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ245
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: One Semmanda Gounder who had obtained super powers at the grace of Sri Subramaniyaswami by his devotion and pious religious life, was leading a life of 'Sanyasi'. He is called as 'Soorikattu Ayyan' by his descendants in reverence. His mortal remains were buried in the patta land. The descendants of Soorikattu Ayyan have been performing pooja at the Samadhi. They used to take kavadi to the Samadhi on thaipoosam day and later on to the hill temple at SivanmalaiOn the next day of thaipoosam, the. descendants of the said Semmanda Gounder alias Soori Kattu Ayyan used to perform annadhanam in private places, a little away from the foot of the Sivanmalai temple hill. The present plaintiffs are now doing the said charity. The annadhanam is done to all without discrimination of caste or creed. The pilgrims who used to come to the hill temple to offer their prayers on thaipoosam day, used to take...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. P. Dhanalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)508
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the estate of the deceased person, subsequent to the date of death, is assessable under s. 168 of the Act in the hands of the executor ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the application of s. 168, there is no scope for application of s. 26 and that the estate for the purpose of assessment under s. 168 is to be considered as a single estate without any right of co-ownership ?'2. One K. Periaswamy, who was being assessed in the status of individual up to the asst. yr. 1975-76, died on 28th Aug., 1975. His wife, P. Balammal, assessee in RA No. 1367/ (Mad) of 1980, his mother, Meenakshi, assessee in RA No. 1366/ (Mds) of 1980 and...
Tag this Judgment!Benedict Balanathan Mahendran Alias Bala Mahendran and Another Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2619
ORDER1. The Concurrent Judgments of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in C.A. No. 146 of 1985, dated 29-7-1986 and the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 665 of 1982, finding both the revision Petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the passports Act and consequently, sentencing both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months on all the four counts concurrently, are being canvassed in this Revision for want of legality, propriety and correctness. 2. Both the Petitioners who are husband and wife and Sri Lankan Nationals in origin, stood charged and tried by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the passports Act. The first petitioner is stated to be Popular for his talent, excellence in cine photography and his being cine director and the second petitioner, his wife, is also st...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »