Chennai Court December 1995 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.
The Bishop in Office of Csi Vellore Diocese, Rt. Rev. Rt. Baskaran and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ657
ORDER1. This litigation depicts a very sad picture of persons who are supposed to have dedicated their lives to the cause of spreading the message of love and harmony in the name of Jesus Christ and purporting to be holy evangelists but actually indulging in acrimonious quarrels and in fights of attrition running after the power of office ignoring the duty of service attached thereto. The fact that there are so many litigations in different courts in the state speaks volumes of their failings as human beings and their inability to practice what is preached by them to the common folk whom they describe compendiously as 'flocks'. It is quite obvious that none of them remembers the command of their Lord 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations'.2. Before adverting to the present dispute, it is better to refer to the formation of Vellore Diocese and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India (hereinafter referred to as 'CSI') as well as the Constitution and th...
Somiah Naidu and Two ors. Vs. Chinna Boosiammal and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ511
Raju, J.1. The above second appeals arise out of the final decree proceedings in one and the same suit, Order S. No. 59 of 1963, on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, wherein the first respondent herein has filed the suit for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share for the plaintiff, for future mesne profits and for costs. The trial court passed a preliminary decree dated 31.3.1965 in the following terms:(1) That of the suit propriety item 13 (house property), item 1 and S.Nos. 278/3 and 278/4 shall be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares and that the plaintiff shall be allotted one such separate share of the same;(2) That the suit, in regard to other items be and is hereby dismissed;(3) That there be no order as to costs (plaintiff's cost Rs. 169.00; costs of defendants 6 to 8, Rs. 102.25;)and(4) That the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for appointment of commissioner for divis...
Ranganathan and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2041
Janarthanam, J.1. These actions arise out of the conviction and sentence of accused-fifteen in number - for various offences under the IPC in S.C. No. 25 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Session, South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore. 2. We shall now, in a bid to understand with ease and grace, the case of mass rioting-cum-murder, besides causing damages to the properties, as projected by the prosecution and the concomitant result that flowed therefrom endeavour to encompass all such details in a chart before ever to briefly narrate the occurrence, culminating in a final report under S. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974) - for short 'Crl.P.C.'. 3. The overt acts relatable to various accused, as mentioned above in the chart were alleged to have been committed by them, in the village going by the name Arangamangalam, situate within the jurisdictional limits of Vadalur Police Station, five Kms. away on the south-east. All the accused, excepting accused 2...
Bahola Laboratories Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC172
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-- .to issue a writ of declaration, or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ, declaring Rule 106-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, inserted by G.S.R. 108-E dated 22.2.1994 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of homoeopathic medicine and claims to be as such from the year 1975. It is also claimed that homoeopathic medicines are manufactured as per the standards laid down by the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of India, that the petitioner is holding a valid licence issued under Rule 85-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' to manufacture homoeopathic medicine, that the licence is being renewed from time to time and that the current licence is valid upto 31.12.1996. The petitioner al...
Arulraj Vs. Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2712; 1996(1)CTC368
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing C.C. No. 365 of 1989, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli. 2. Facts in brief are : A complaint was filed under S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to (for short) as 'the Code', for an offence under Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein by the respondent. 3. Petitioner is working as District Munsif in the subordinate Judicial Service of the State of Tamil Nadu. As advocate the petitioner herein appeared in a maintenance case filed by one Nesammal against her husband. He gave a complaint against one Mohan and his counsel Thiru. Thilak Manohar alleging theft of a letter from his case bundle at Valliyur Police Station. The case was registered in Crime No. 317 of 1987 for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. A charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. The advocate Thilak Manohar was discharged. In respect of the other accused the case...
Lakshmi Alias Mookayee @ Marudhayee Vs. the Inspector General of Priso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC110
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to the first respondent herein to treat the sentence imposed on her in two Sessions Cases S.C. Nos. 170 of 1982 and 65 of 1982 to run concurrently.2. The Brief facts are:- The petitioner was convicted by the Asst. Sessions Judge at Vridhachalam for an offence under Section 395 I.P.C. for a period of three years on 7.12.1982 in S.C. No. 170 of 1982. While undergoing the sentence the petitioner was convicted by the District and Sessions Judge at Tiruchirappalli to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in C.C. No. 65 of 1982 on 31.3.1983. It is submitted that her husband is a cooly and she is not in a position to look after her female child aged about 9 years which requires care and protection. It is her case that she is languishing in prison for the last twelve years and that the District and Sessions Judge did not direct the sentences to run concurrently.3. The Principal point for consideration...
Mrs. Manonmani Muthuswamy Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC17
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. Mrs. Manonmani Muthuswamy, appellant herein, challenges in this appeal the correctness of the order dated 17-11-1995 passed by Shivaraj Patil, J., in Writ Petition No. 15846 of 1995. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to E.P. No. 72 of 1995 in O.P. No. 121/92 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and quash the notice dated 1.11.95 issued by it (the first respondent) as invalid, even at the stage of admission.2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition may have to be stated, Appellant was the first opposite party in O.P. No. 121 of 1992 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The first opposite party before the Commission was standing Housing Construction and Finance Company, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Manonmani. The State Commission was dealing with a complaint under Section 17 read with Section...
Ammaji Beevi Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC191
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in petition No. 656 of 1987 on the file of Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. That petition was filed for eviction under Section 3(4)(a) of Act 25 of 1955 by the revision petitioner herein, who is the daughter of Mohammed Ismail on the ground that there was default in payment of rent for Faslis 1393 to 1396.2. The respondent herein, in the eviction petition, contended that the original owner of the land was one Mohammed Ismail, in whose favour, lease-deed was executed, which is marked as Ex: P.1 dated 15.4.70. According to the respondent, no lease deed was executed in favour of Ammaji Beevi, Therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and Ammaji Beevi. The Revenue Court held that in view of the fact that there is no fresh lease deed between Ammaji Beevi and the respondent, she can not be said to be the owner of the land in question and there is no relationship of landlord and tena...
Consolidated Investments Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)628
ORDERG. SANTHANAM, A. M. :This is an appeal by the assessee. The appellant is a company in which public are substantially interested. The previous year of the appellant ended on 31st March, 1992, relevant to the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessment was completed under the provisions of s. 143(3) of the IT Act. In arriving at the business income, the appellant had debited a sum of Rs. 1,59,75,409 as interest paid (which included a sum of Rs. 1,20,20,766 being interest paid to the holding company). The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the accounts that a sum of Rs. 1,99,78,000 was due from M/s Unitel Communications Ltd., a joint sector project promoted by U. B. Group of companies, of which the appellant is one such company. But no interest was charged by the appellant on such advance. It was explained before the AO that the financial position of Unitel Communications Ltd. was in a precarious condition and as the assessee is one of the major shareholders, at the request of the borrower an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR649(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80L, even while agreeing with the view taken by the Department that the income computed in the assessee's case will be liable to tax under s. 164(1) treating such income as the total income of an AOP ?' 2. Six reference applications were filed by the CIT, Madurai, seeking to raise two questions said to be questions of law arising out of the common order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 790, 791 and 795 to 798 (Mad) of 1979, dt. 30th June, 1980, in the case of three trusts, viz., Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust, Venu Suresh Ramya Trust Madurai, and Ramesh Mahesh Radha Trust, Madurai, for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. Even though two qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »