Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Special Tahsildar, No. Xv (Land Acquisition) Vs. P.R. Ramalingam and T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC483
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these appeals, A.S. Nos. 9, 16 and 17 of 1986 arise out of Award No. 6 of 1979, while A.S. Nos. 11, 13 and 18 arise out of Award No. 7 of 1979. A.S. No. 12 of 1986 arises out of Award No. 12 of 1979. In all these cases, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is 11.11.1978. The date of taking possession of lands in A.S. Nos. 9,11, 13 and 18 of 1986 it is 14.11.1979, while in A.S. No. 12 of 1986 it is 15.3.1980. The lands involved are classified in two groups by the Subordinate Judge as Government Wet and Government Dry. A.S. Nos. 9, 16 and 17 are appeals against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. Nos. 108, 110 and 106 of 1983 dated 14.5.1985. A.S. No. 11, 13 and 18 of 1986 are against the Common Judgment of the Subordinate Judge dated 30.3.1985 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 119, 120 and 123 of 1983. A.S. No. 12 of 1986 is against the Judgment in L.A.O.P. No. 104 of 1983 dated 14.5.1985. While the Land Acquisition Officer awarde...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusamy Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC87
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. Before the CEGAT, the petitioner/appellant had agreed to deposit the amount. Accordingly, the Tribunal had passed the order on 7.5.1991, granting him time till 30.8.1991 for depositing the amount. Thereafter, he filed an application for modification of that order. The Tribunal, by order dated 22.12.1992, has rejected that application. Validity of both the orders was challenged before a learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6710 and 6711 of 1993. Learned Single Judge has re-examined the matter and held that there is no, case for interfering with the orders passed by the Tribunal. It may be pointed out that in the order dated 7.5.1991, the Tribunal has held that in similar cases it has held that the petitioners become manufacturers. The question as to whether the petitioner/appellant is manufacturer has to be decided in the appeal. We, accordingly, modify the order of the Tribunal insofar as it holds the petitioner/appellant as manufacturer and keep open that question to b...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Mohanrao Pandamudi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ577
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 13th March, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4865 of 1989. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in this appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the G.O.Ms. No. 130, Information and Tourism (Tourism VI) Department, dated 30th March, 1989 passed by the 1st respondent - the Government of Tamil Nadu. 3. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner as per the agreement has an alternative remedy of arbitration, that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is foreigner and not an Indian citizen, that the action of the State Government in passing G.O.Ms. No. 130, dated 30th March, 1989 is not arbitrary, that the rule of promissory estoppel cannot apply as no promise was made on the basis of which the petitioner can be said to have altered his pos...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanram Sastry and Others Vs. Swadharma Swarajya Sangha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas272(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The facts of the case in both the petitions are as follows : Company Petition No. 12 of 1982, has been filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the grounds of oppression and mismanagement. Company Petition No. 13 of 1982 has been filed under section 155 of the Act for rectification of the share register. Swadharma Swarajava Sangh/first respondent in both the petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangha'), a company having the benefits under section 25 of the Act, is a non-profit sharing company. 2. The memorandum and articles of association of the Sangha would reveal that it is a charitable institution. But, if is in the nature of a trust and is not a company in the strict sense of the term, nor is it a commercial venture. It was founded on March 28, 1930, by the late Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao as a company limited by shares. Subsequently, in the year 1957, licence was obtained from the Central Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.M. Natarajan Vs. State of Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2728
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District, in S.C. No. 122 of 1990 for the alleged offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is as follows : Deceased Velumani was married to the first accused/first respondent herein on 3-6-1984. Though 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and other ariticles were provided to her at the time of the marriage, her husband and mother-in-law the second accused/second respondent, were harassing her to get some more jewels and also to get a Moped from her parents. Due to this harassment, the deceased Volumani lodged a complaint against her husband and mother-in-law on 3-9-1985 in Peelamedu Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 16 inquired the complaint. As both parties agreed to settle the matter between themselves, he recorded the s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narasaiah Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2512
1. These two appeals arise from the order of the learned Special Judge (9th Additional Sessions Judge), City Civil Court, Madras, in C.C. No. 42/95 for the offences under Sections 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas he was acquitted of the charge under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. As against the conviction, the accused has filed the Appeal C.A. No. 993/86 and the State, Challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, has filed the Appeal No. 568/91. 2. The accused was working as an office Superintendent in Railway Hospital at Perambur, Madras. The Prosecution case is that P.W. 1, who is a native of Chittoor Taluk, Andhra Pradesh, was unemployed. He applied for the post of Khalasi in Integral Coach ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2525
ORDER1. These revisions for admissions, have been filed against the Order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, in C.A. No. 150/94 confirming the conviction imposed by the 14th Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, for the offence U/S. 366, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The first accused has filed Crl. R.C. No. 74/95 and accused 2 and 3 have filed the other revision.2. The case of the prosecution is that somewhere in June 1992, the first accused falsely promised to PWs. 1 to 3 that in Kalyan near Bombay, employment opportunities are available as Domestic Servants with good salary and free meals and P.W. 3 also knowing this through P.W. 1 agreed to be employed in Kalyan, that all these revision petitioners took these women and one Parvathi to Kalyan where they were sold to Banu and Susheela for prostitution, that these women were forced to submit to the prostitution aft...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Mad)222; [1995]216ITR277(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Two questions (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 60,718 for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and Rs. 1,70,800 for the asst. yr. 1973-74, made under s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961, holding that the cash payments should not be treated as perquisite and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the royalty paid to the foreign collaborators relating to the export sales, was entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 have been referred to us for our opinion at the instance of the Revenue. 2. The assessee is a public limited company and carries on business in the manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. In its return for the asst. yr. 1972-73, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 60,718 on the ground that it had provided to its employees perquisites in the form of hiring out residential accommodation, paying c...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Kabeer Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR216(Mad)
Shivappa, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing the complaints in E.O.C.C. No. 1245 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Madras. The complaint was filed for contravention of certain provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, viz., that the firm being the first accused failed to remit the tax deducted at source as required under section 194A of the Act read with rule 30 of the Rules without reasonable cause or excuse and as such, committed an offence punishable under section 276B of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that no deduction was made and even the tax was paid as claimed and the provisions of section 276B of the Act are not attracted. The question whether the petitioner has contravened section 194A of the Act or not and whether the complaint is justified or not are all matters of evidence. The petitioner can raise such contentions before the court below. I see no ground to quash the complaint. The petition is, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Engine Valves Ltd. Rep. by Its Vice-chairman and Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ566Mad; (1995)IIMLJ322
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2-9-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15336 of 1994. 2. In the writ petition, the appellant herein sought for quashing the order dated 31-5-1994 passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 47 of 1979. In that dispute reference has been made for adjudication of the following issue: 'Whether the non-employment of the workman in question is justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled? To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it could be so computed'? The Industrial Tribunal on a preliminary issue, has held in the impugned order as follows: 'So, taking into consideration all these facts, I find that the enquiries held against these 3 workman V.O. Ganesan, I.V. Jayaraman and Rangamani were not just and fair. In the counter, the respondent has stated at page 33 that if under the circumstances it becomes necessary to let in evidence on merits of the enquiry against any of these w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »