Chennai Court March 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.
N.K. Mohnot Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Mad)247; [1995]215ITR275(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner herein who is an income-tax practitioner and is also engaged in the business of financing through a Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta and through several partnership firms of which the Hindu undivided family is a partner has, in this writ petition, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents who are officers of the Income-tax Department, to return the documents and promissory notes described in the annexures to the petition. The documents set out in the schedule include share and debenture certificates, bank pass books, account books, files and ledgers, vouchers, cheque books and promissory notes. The value of the promissory notes, as averred in the affidavit of the respondents, is Rs. 72 lakhs. 2. All these documents and promissory notes were impounded/seized by the respondents when the respondents conducted a survey of the petitioner's business premises at No. 38, College Road, Madras, that survey having been commenced at 3.2...
S.M. Kabeer Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR359(Mad)
Shivappa, J.1.The petitioner is challenging the prosecution initiated by the Income-tax Department for delayed payment under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case of the petitioner is that a partner of the firm cannot be made liable without considering the contravention of the provisions and that there is no contravention. It is further submitted that they have compounded the offence under section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act. Section 279(2) of the Act contemplates 'either before or after the institution of proceedings, an offence initiated for contravention of the Act may be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or the Director-General'. Even now, pendency of the proceedings before the trial court is no bar for compounding. He may do so, but the manner how he contravened is a matter for evidence. Whether the partners are liable to be prosecuted is a question of fact. This court need not venture to decide that question under inherent powers. It is also submitted that the pe...
Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC452; 1995(52)ECC92; 1995(78)ELT410(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of PVC resins, pipes and fittings with its factory at Mettur Dam. They have also an Industrial Plant at Krishangiri for the manufacture of Industrial alcohol. Finding that the power supply from the State Electricity Board is insufficient and often interrupted, the petitioner decided to have a satisfactory 100 per cent power supply to maintain its PVC factory. Accordingly, they decided to have a Power Project for the generation of the electricity to meet its requirements. They obtained a no objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Government and Electricity Board. They obtained a licence for the import of a 4.8 M.W. combined Cycle Power Project from Japan. It is a Gas Turbine Power Project. The Power Project fell under Heading 84.66 of the Ist Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The first respondent had issued a Notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 namely, Notification 132/85, dated 19-4-1985 exempting the ...
Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC391; 1995(51)ECC105; 1995(79)ELT23(Mad); (1995)IIMLJ397
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J. 1. Writ Appeals 408 of 1993 and 281 of 1994 are preferred against the order dated 24-11-1993 passed on W.M.P. 31971 of 1993 filed in W.P. 7050 of 1993, where as Writ Appeal 202 of 1995 is preferred against the order dated 23-9-1993 passed on W.P. 7050 of 1993. 2. It may be pointed out here that writ miscellaneous petition 31971 of 1993 was filed to modify the conditions prescribed in the order dated 23-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 regarding pre-deposit of the amount. 3. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 23-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 modified the order of the CEGAT directing the appellant in writ appeal 1408 of 1993 to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lacs as against the duty assessed at Rs. 1,47,10,803/- plus Rs. 35 lacs penalty. The said sum of Rs. 50 lacs was directed to be deposited in two instalments. 4. The appellant in writ appeal 1408 of 1993 deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and thereafter, sought for modification of the ord...
M. Senthil Kumar and anr. Vs. Sudha Mills (India) Private Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas1029(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Equal partners who founded a private limited company, Sudha Mills (India) Private Limited on February 2, 1990, with equal shareholding and equal number of seats on the board of directors, after achieving impressive growth in the new company's turnover and profits, have fallen out and have invoked the jurisdiction of two different forums seeking different reliefs, thereby raising the question as to whether the proceedings before the two forums--the Company Law Board before which C. P. No. 36 of 1993, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Chotani on May 27, 1993, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act seeking relief against oppression and mismanagement is pending, and this court wherein Mr. and Mrs. Senthil Kumar have filed Company Petition No. 50 of 1994 on March 19, 1994, under Section 433(f) of the Act seeking winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds--should continue parallel or one or the other proceedings deferred and if so, which one of the two proceedi...
P. Mari Vs. the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC594; (1996)ILLJ612Mad
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioner entered service as a Junior Assistant in the office of the second respondent. After nearly 29 years of service, the petitioner faced a charge memo dated December 17, 1990. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner under five different charge memos. The first charge memo related to unauthorised absence from duty for nearly one month and consequences thereof. The second charge memo was issued on June 16, 1989. This related to lethargy in the performance of his duties and dis-obedicncc of lawful orders. The third charge memo was issued on October 27, 1989. This related to the ledgers not having been tallied with the accounts department, non-verification of agreements for July, 1990 and for having placed an indent for purchase of stationery contradictory to Rules. There was also a fourth charge memo on January 8, 1990 for having taken unauthorised leave from November 27, 1989 to December 7, 1989. There was a fifth charge memo dated May ...
C. Rajagopal Vs. Mrs. Mallika Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC211
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In both these Revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. Both the cases were filed by the same landlord on the allegation that she needs the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is her case that the building is old and dilapidated, that it is more than 60 years old, and that she has the necessary means to reconstruct the building. It is also stated that she has deposited the necessary fees before the Local Authority towards demolishing charges. She has also given an undertaking that she will put up the construction within a very short period as provided under the Statute.2. The counter petitioner in both the cases is the same. He has raised a common contention that there is no bona fide in the claim of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction. According to the tenant, there were prior proceedings between the parties, where in one case eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default, and in another, fixation of fair rent was sou...
R. Devarajan Vs. Canara Bank, Kotturpuram Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC69
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 2055 of 1992 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Madras, has filed this revision against the dismissal of. LA. No. 1851 of 1992, seeking leave to defend the above said suit filed under Order 37 of the civil Procedure Code. The said suit by the respondent-Bank is for the amount due under promissory note executed on 29.9.1983 by both the first and second defendant, as co-promissors. Though the suit promissory note is dated 29.9.1983, the suit was fled only on or about 14.3.1992. In order to save limitation, the plaint alleges that there was two acknowledgments of liability by the first defendant, one on 15.4.1986 and another on 3.4.1989. Admittedly, if those acknowledgments are true, the suit is within time. But the contention taken in the above said interlocutory application is that the said acknowledgments will not bind the second defendant. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the supporti...
P. Natarajan and Sons Vs. the Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad154
ORDERK. A. Swami, C. J.1. These two appeals are preferred against a common order dt. 20-1-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 20700/92 and 19810/93. In W.P. No. 20700/92, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. 19-12-92 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur and in W.P. No. 19830/93, the very same petitioner sought for quahsing the order dt. 5-5-93 under reference No. Z.O.HD/C. No. A1/04192/93 of the Assistant Health Officer, Zone X, Mylapore, Madras-4 and also the proceedings dated 11-5-93 sealing the premises No. 120, L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras and further to direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras to reconsider the application for renewal of licence dated 10-2-93.2. In W.P. No. 20700/92, out of which W.A. No. 264/94 arises, the petitioner, as already pointed out has sought for quashing the order passed by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaniniyur dated 19-12-1992, preventing the petitioner from carrying on the offensive trade namel...
Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Vs. Abdul Reguman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad198
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J 1. The State Is the appellant in the above appeal which is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in Land Acquisition Original Petition No. 7 of 1984 dated 10-5-1985. 2. The extent of the land measuring 3 acre 60 cents situate in the village of Sivakasi in the Taluk of Sathur in the Registration Sub District of Sivakasi, in the Distric: of Rama-natnapuram and registered in the name of respondents-claimants was declared by the Government Gazette dated 23-2-1983 as needed for the provision of house sites to the Adidravidars of Sengulam Kanmoi Porom-boke etc. The Notification was issued by the Government on the representations made by Adidravidars residing in Sengulam Kanmoi Poromboke stating that their habitation is situate in Kanmoi bunds and they are living in small huts. The Special Tahsildar (Adidravidar Welfare) and Land Acquisition Officer inspected the habitation and found that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »