Chennai Court April 1995 Judgments
P. Sivaprakasam Vs. Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad156; 1995(2)CTC12
ORDER1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner claims to be a Ceylon Repatriate and he applied for a lease of sand quarrying in Kosasthalai River Poramboke bed over an extent of 53.27 acres on 15-4-1986. Even at the time of inspection by the second respondent the villagers has raised certain objections. After considering all the aspect of the case, the second respondent granted lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years by an order dt. 18-12-1986 over an extent of 53.27 acres. The petitioner remitted the lease amount of Rs. 81,194-60 Ps. and the lease was also confirmed on 9-2-1987. The petitioner started quarrying operations as and from 10-2-1987. According to the petitioner, his business rivals had instigated the villagers to obstruct the quarrying operations. This happened on 26-2-1987 and the petitioner immediately sent representations to the Revenue Division Officer, theCollector, Deputy ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Premanand Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad316; (1995)IIMLJ325
ORDERK. A. Swami, CJ.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16-3-1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition 19008 of 1994. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to select and appoint him to the I Year MBBS Course for the Academic Year 1994-95 Session under the special category reserved for children born of inter-caste marriage. Learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner should be provided a seat from the academic year 1995-96. Hence, the petitioners has come up in appeal.2. Facts necessary for the purpose of adjudicating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition, are no more in dispute. The petitioner is born of an inter-caste marriage between a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and a forward community. The State Government in order to encourage inter-caste marriage and that too between a member of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and forward comm...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1115]; (1996)ILLJ394Mad
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. For W.P. No. 8555/1994 The Three petitioner companies who have described themselves in the petition as group companies of H.C. Kothari Group with common address have sought a writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent, State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department in G.O.(D) No. 320 dated April 18, 1994 and to quash the same. By that order, the first respondent having considered that the refusal of the management of the petitioner companies to hold bilateral talks with the general Secretary of the third respondent, Kothari Group Employees union constitutes an unfair labour practice falling under S.No. 15 under Part I of V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and exercising the powers vested in the Government under Section 34(1) of the said Act, directed the Inspector of Labour Madras II Circle to take steps to file a complaint against the Management of H.C...
Tag this Judgment!Bangaru and ors. Vs. theeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ430
K.A. Swami, C.J. and D. Raju, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal was directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court, dated 29.7.1993 in C.M.A. No. 458 of 1992, wherein it has been held rejecting the appeal in A.A.O. No. 458 of 1992, that there was no scope for condoning the delay of eighteen months in filing a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The first appellant is the mother of appellant Nos. 2 to 4, and wife of late Chinnapomma Naicken and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 who are the minors are the sons and daughter of late Chinnapomma Naicken and the first appellant. He was stated to have been aged about 38 years at the time of his death and was stated to have been travelling at about 5.30 a.m. on 12.2.1989 by a bicycle towards Namakkal. At that time, the bus bearing registration No. TMN 5972 belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation, which is a public undertaking, was said to have knocked down the deceased from his cycle and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J. Jayalalitha Vs. Dr. M. Channa Reddy, Governor of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ187
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. The first respondent is the Governor of the State. The fourth respondent presented a petition on 2.11.1993 to the first respondent praying for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegations of corruption and criminal misconduct. As no orders had been passed on the said petition, the fourth respondent filed W.P. No. 7996 of 1994 in this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, who was described as 'the Deciding Authority and His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Madras' to grant necessary sanction for prosecuting the petitioner herein, who was the second respondent therein, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The third respondent in that writ petition was the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Goodwell and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR23(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 2(1) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,61,987 being the surcharge ordinarily payable but not paid in view of the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India as per the provisions of the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, should be deducted while arriving at the chargeable profits for the levy of surtax ?' 2. The assessee is assessed to surtax. While computing the chargeable profits for the levy of surtax for the assessment year 1977-78, the Income-tax Officer has not deducted the income-tax surcharge payable of Rs. 7,61,987 since the assessee was not liable to pa...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusamy Naicker and Others Vs. G. Jayaraman and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad212; (1995)IIMLJ549
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 1 to 7, 11 and 12 are the appellants in this first appeal against the preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff 1st respondent's /10th share in the plaint scheduled properties (as against the plaintiffs claim for 1/9(h share thereof). The . Court below has also directed that the family debts has to be discharged out of the said properties and that the 1st defendant has to account for the profits from the said properties from 8-12-1981, the date of the suit notice.2. There is no dispute regarding the following relationship between the parties: The 1st defendant is the father. He has two wives, the 1 st wife being 9th defendant and the 2nd wife being 10th defendant. Both the wives are sisters. Through 9th defendant, the 1st defendant has six sons, the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 6, and 2 daughters, defendants 1 and 12. Through 10th defendant, the 1st defendant has two sons, viz., defendants 7 and 8 and one daughter, viz., 13th defendant. Thus, on t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. L. Ganesan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3849; 1995(2)CTC185
ORDER1. These are petitions filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the revisions. The respondents in Crl. M.P. No. 7135/94 were prosecuted before the III Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C. No. 145/87 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 307 and 212, Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 126(e) of the Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act. Similarly, the respondents in Crl. M.P. No. 7136/94 were prosecuted before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy, in S.C. No. 77/88 for the alleged offence under Sections 120-B, read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 332, Indian Penal Code, Section 126 Indian Railways Act and Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. By the G.O.Ms. No. 895 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 8-5-90, with these case were ordered to be withdrawn and the Court also permitted to withdraw the prosecutions on 25-6-90 and 20-9-90 respectively dischargin...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusamy Naicker and ors. Vs. G. Jayaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ549
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 1 to 7, 11 and 12 are the appellants in this first appeal against the preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff 1st respondent's 1/10th share in the plaint schedule properties as against the plaintiff's claim for 1/9th share thereof). The court below has also directed that the family debt has to be discharged out of the said properties and that the 1st defendant has to account for the profits from the said properties from 8.12.1981, the date of the suit notice.2. There is no dispute regarding the following relationship between the parties; The 1st defendants the father. He has two wives, the 1st wife being 9th defendant and the 2nd wife being 10th defendant. Both the wives are sisters, Through 9th defendant, the 1st defendant has six sons, the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 6, and 2 daughters, defendants 1 and 12. Through 10th defendant, the 1st one daughter, viz., 13th defendant. Thus, on the whole, the 1st defendant has two sons, viz., defendants 7 and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR640(Mad)
1. In this tax case petition, the Department requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law, said to arise out of the order 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rent receipts derived by the assessee-company from letting out of properties should be assessed under the head 'Business' thereby allowing the expenses incurred for letting out the properties, as business expenditure? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering the applicability of the provisions of section 43B for disallowing the disputed urban land tax if the income is to be assessed under 'business' and the non-deductibility of the cost of supplying drinking water from the income from property'? ' 2. In so far as question No. 1 is conc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »