Chennai Court May 1995 Judgments
Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1995
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC705
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above contempt application was originally filed by the applicant against the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association and another who was the then Secretary of the Association. Notice was ordered on 9.11.1995. On 17.11.1995 Mr. V.A. Parthasarathy, Vice President of the Association was present in Court and his appearance for future hearings was dispensed with. Rangarajan and Prabhakaran, Advocates, who are the Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Circket Association are made as party third respondent to the contempt application.2. It is stated in the contempt application that the applicant was constrained to file this application against the respondents for having caused serious damage to the majesty and image of this Court in making disparaging remarks against this Court in a matter pertaining to the entitlement of the members of the Madras Race Club in getting complimentary and concessional tickets to watch cricket matches at the M.A. Chidambaram Stadium which are sponsored ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.T.HA. Bit Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR173(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this tax case petition, the Department requested this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions stipulated in s. 249(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the cancellation of the penalty under s. 140A(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company and it filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 1977-78 admitting an income of Rs. 54,635. The assessee did not pay the advance tax. The assessee was liable to pay what is known as 'self assessment' tax under s. 140A of the IT Act within one month from the date of filing of the return. Even that tax, the assessee had failed to deposit. The assessee was asked to show cause why such tax was not deposited ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagarsamy and Others Vs. the State and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3414
ORDER1. This revision is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Mudurai in C.A. No. 147/88 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivaganga, in SC No. 96/82 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, four years and Rs. 1,500 (except for first accused) and one month respectively for the offences under Ss. 148, 326 and 326 read with S. 149, IPC. For the offence under S. 147, IPC also against some of the accused, one year rigorous imprisonment is imposed. The first accused has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under S. 326, IPC. Even though the second accused was convicted under S. 326, IPC for three counts, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him only for two counts. 2. P.W. 1, is a resident in Madhavarayanpatti Village whereas the accused are the residents of Iyyapatti the adjacent Village. There was previous enmity be...
Tag this Judgment!Hooli Devi Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs (P), Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC85; 1996(53)ECC35; 1995(78)ELT669(Mad)
ORDER1. This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in Crl.M.P. No. 4104/92 in C.A. No. 111/91 dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. 2. The petitioner is the widow of one Lachimal, who was the appellant in C.A. No. 111/91 convicted for the offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Madras, in C.C. No. 134/89, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. As against this conviction, she filed the appeal in C.A. No. 111/91 on the file of the Sessions Court, Madras, and while the appeal was pending, he died. The revision petitioner, as legal representative of the deceased appellant, filed the petition under Section 394 Code of Criminal Procedure along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 195 days in fili...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›