Chennai Court March 1995 Judgments
Mohamad Rafi Vs. Jayakumar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2941
ORDER1. This private revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C. No. 85 of 1989, for the offences under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 324 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was PW1 before the lower Court. 2. The prosecution case is as follows :- On the night of 24-6-1988, PW1, his brother deceased Nazar, PWs 2 to 4 and two other persons, all belonging to Kuniamuthur, had been to see the Second show (night show) film in Aruna Theatre. By about 11.20 P.M., during the interval time, PW1 and his brother deceased Nazar went to the toilet room situated outside the theatre near the canteen, followed by their other friends at some distance. These two respondents/accused were coming from the opposite side and the first respondent happened to dash against PW1, on account of which there was wordy quarrel between them. PW1 slapped the first respondent on his cheeks twice and immediately the first respondent whipped out t...
Tag this Judgment!Madeena Beevi Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ12
ORDER1. One Madeena Beevi (petitioner) is the grand-mother of the detenu J. S. M. Kader Riyaz. The detenu, it is said, is a native of Keelakarai and he has studied up to 8th standard. He, it is stated, had been running a silver shop in the name of 'Hameedha Jewellers' at No. 146, N.S.C. Bose Road. 2. On 27-6-1994, the officers attached to En-forcement Directorate searched the shop premises and seized Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and certain incriminating documents. A confession statement was also stated to have been recorded from him. From the incriminating materials seized and the confessional statement recorded, it transpired that he had been dealing in foreign exchange in violation of the relevant provisions of FERA, in the sense of himself effecting payments in India, as per the instructions of one Abdullah at Dubai, a person resident outside India. Consequently, follow-up action had been taken with a view to presenting him in future from acting in any manner preju...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Praveena Film Circuit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR844(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this tax case petition, the Department requested this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law, said to arise out of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials to hold, that the assessee had received only a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for the sale of the film, 'Dhavani Kanavugal'? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the letter of Shri Panchu Arunachalam of Gayathri Combines to Shri Shanmugham indicated the figure 15 only as number of prints and not the price is an evidence within the scope of sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Vijayan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR371(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by different income-tax assessees praying for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1992, as illegal, beyond the scope of preventing avoidance of tax and inconsistent with the scheme of the Income-tax Act and violative of articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Since the contentions raised by the petitioners and the relief sought in the above writ petitions are similar and common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 16425 of 1992 : The petitioner herein is an advocate. He is an income-tax assessee. His wife, Mrs. B. Vasanthakumari, and his minor daughter, V. Suchitra, are also assessees with regard to their independent source of income. In so far as the daughter of the petitioner is concerned, the source of her income is traceable to th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagarajan Vs. Southern Structurals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ364Mad; (1995)IIMLJ337
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The 1st defendant, who failed in both the courts below, has preferred this second appeal against his employer, the plaintiff 1st respondent herein. Respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.2. The suit by the above said employer is for a sum of Rs. 15,000 with interest, claimed as damages stipulated in Ex. A-2 dated September 4, 1985 the agreement entered into between the 1st respondent and the appellant after Ex. A-1 (July 30, 1985) the appointment order of the plaintiff appointing the first defendant as its employee. Under the said agreement the appellant should have served the 1st respondent for five years and if there is any breach committed by the appellant, he should pay Rs. 15,000 to the employer- 1st respondent. The appellant resigned in about two years and hence on the ground that breach has been committed, the 1st respondent laid the above said suit, claiming the above said sum of Rs. 15,000 stipulated in the agreement with interest. The courts b...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Kari Gowder Vs. H.M. Halan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC89
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. As the dispute among the parties herein relates to the same set of property with three distinct reliefs asked for in a suit, which is pending disposal, with the consent of the Bar for the respective parties, for probing the identical question of law, all the three matters were heard together and disposed of by delivering the common order.2. The two appeals and the revision are directed by the first defendant by name Kari Gowder in the suit O.S.176/84, now pending before the learned District Judge at Ootacamund in Nilgiris District, for the relief of partition, possession and so on, filed by the respondent herein. The parties herein along with others are brothers owning extensive landed and house properties in and around Ootacamund in Nilgiris District like estates, tea and coffee gardens, house properties, bank deposits and so on, which are the several items of the suit properties. The plaintiff, viz., the respondent herein being the brother of the appellant/rev...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC93
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.8537 of 1991.2. In the writ petition the order dated 5.2.1991 bearing number 272 of 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT) directing the 2nd respondent in this appeal to deposit Rs. 22,50,000/- towards penalty pertaining to one item instead of Rs. 48,90,000/- as ordered by the Collector of Central Excise and also Rs. 6,00,000/- towards penally instead of Rs. 11,00,000/- as ordered by the Adjudicating Authority, is challenged.3. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the CEGAT is a discretionary order, therefore the direction issued by the CEGAT can be interfered with.4. It is not possible to agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The order passed by the CEGAT is under Section 129E of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commercial Credit Corporation (1943) Pvt. Ltd., Madras Vs. the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad93
ORDERK. A. Swami, C. J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 2102/95 rejecting the writ petition. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order bearing No. 20258 dated 9-11-1994 passed by the first respondent, enhancing the property tax for the year 1993-94 and further intimating the petitioner/appellant that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of property tax, he can deposit fifty percent of the revised tax and go on appeal within 15 days from the date of the order. The learned single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the order under challenge is appealable and the appeal lies to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and even thereafter if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, further appeal is provides to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Therefore, it is not a case in which the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 220 of the Constitution is called for. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ramaswamy Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas995(Mad); (1996)IMLJ26
Jagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioner's case is that the third respondent herein filed a petition C.D. 165 of 1994 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul Anna District, Dindigul, for return of certain amount deposited with the petitioner. The Consumer Redressal Forum has allowed the petition by order dated January 11, 1995. The petitioner remained ex parte before the said Forum. The award has been passed against both the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Against the said award only the petitioner preferred appeal in Appeal No. 437 of 1995 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated May 31, 1995. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Now, pursuant to the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. A.C.C. Ex., Madras-vii Division, Madras-34
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT198(Mad)
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks refund of the excise duty paid by it on the ground that the Department has, after considering the refund claim of the petitioner, directs such refund as early as on 8-8-1989 and that even though the petitioner had challenged the order before the Asstt. Commissioner and was unsuccessful in that challenge, the Department itself has not disputed the claim made by the petitioner to the extent it came to be allowed on 8-8-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount directed to be refunded to the petitioner by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 8-8-1989 has got to be refunded notwithstanding the fact that as on the date of Amending Act (40 of 1991), which came into force viz., 20-9-1991, the actual refund had not been effected. 2. The petitioner had been called upon to produce proof by the officers of the Department in support of its claim that Modvat credit taken by its buyer had been reversed, before the sum due to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »