Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
T.T.V. Dinakaran Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT745(Mad)
ORDER WERE TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CAREFUL THINKING OR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE MIND AS TO THE NECESSITY OF OBTAINING and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent. A necessary corollary of what has been observed above is that mind has to be applied with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents mentioned in the order. An application of the mind with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine only a few of the many documents mentioned in the order, while there has been no such application of mind in respect of the remaining documents, would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. If, however, there has been consideration of the matter regarding the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents and an order is passed thereafter, the Court would stay its hand in the matter and would not substitute its own opinion for that of the author...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: [1996]222ITR77(Mad)
1. In compliance with the direction of this court contained in T.C. No. 472 of 1977, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19,78,065 representing 'rebated interest' should be added to the 'cost of acquisition' of the assessee undertaking as on July 18, 1969, and should, therefore, be deducted from the compensation received by the assessee for the purpose of computing the 'capital gains' assessable for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. Consequent upon the nationalisation of banks and acting under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the banking business of the assessee-company was taken over by the nationalised institution, the Indian Overseas Bank, on July 18, 1969. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee worked out a capital loss of Rs. 19,19,539 originally and subsequently at ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Pandaram and 10 ors. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC217; (1995)IIMLJ594
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. This writ appeal has been field against the order of the Learned singel Judge dated 10.8.1994 in WP. No. 13634 of 1994 wherein the learned Judge has chosen to reject the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the records of the second respondent dated : 25.4.1994 whereunder the second respondent has set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk dated: 21.1.1994 transferring the patta relating to the lands in question in favour of the appellants. The appellants are admittedly poojaris of Arulmighu Vijayapuriamman at Kovilpalyam of Erode Taluk. Even in the affidavit, it is admitted that the lands in question were granted for the pagoda of Sri Vijayapuriamman Devasthanam at Kovilpalayam, Erode Taluk and the said grant was confirmed by the British Government permanently to the pagoda so long as it was well kept up. It is also claimed that the lands were in possession of one Swami Pandaram who was doing servic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan and Five ors. Vs. Perumal Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC549
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This unnumbered Revision is filed against the Order passed in I.A.No. 279 of 1990 in I.A.No. 2783/86 in O.S.No. 1387 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Salem, dated 27.9.1993.2. One Krishnan was the second respondent in that application. He died on 10.8.1993, i.e., before the Order was passed by the lower Court. But, without knowing the death, the Order has been passed.3. After obtaining a certified copy of the Order, the legal heirs of Krishnan have filed this Revision with an application to set aside the abatement and also to condone the delay in filing the said application to set aside the abatement.4. It is seen that no steps were taken before the lower Court for impleading the legal heirs of Krishnan.5. In this Revision, when the Applications were filed to set aside the abatement and also to condone the delay, the Registry felt a doubt about the maintainability of those Applications. Accordingly, it was directed to be posted before Court.6. I he...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Pandaram and ors. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ594
Raju, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.8.1994 in W.P. No. 13634 of 1994 wherein the learned Judge has chosen to reject the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the records of the second respondent dated 25.4.1994 whereunder the second respondent has set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk, dated 21.1.1994 transferring the patta relating to the lands in question in favour of the appellants. The appellants are admittedly poojaris of Arulmigu Vijayapuriamman at Kovilpalayam of Erode Taluk. Even in the affidavit, it is admitted that the lands in question were granted for the pagoda of Sri Vijayapuriamman Devasthanam at Kovilpalayam, Erode Taluk and the said grant was confirmed by the British Government permanently to the pagoda so long as it was well kept up. It is also claimed that the lands were in possession of one Swami Pandaram who was doing service to the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Balasubramanian, Adv. Vs. the Commissioner , Nagercoil Municipality ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad159
ORDER1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records dated 21-1-1995 in reference No. 13/92/F2 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same.2. The petitioner herein in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has stated that he is an advocate practising at Nagercoil and that he purchased by a Registered Sale deed, dated 18-3-1989, a property consisting of land measuring roughly 6 1/2 cent in Old Survey No. 1382/426, 427 together with the superstructure standing thereon hearing No. 10/2-6. It is also stated that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the said property by letting it out to the tenants. The petitioner has further slated that the title of the property purchased by the petitioner is traceable to a registered partition deed of the year 1947. He has further stated that the description of theproperty purchased by him tallies with the partition deed. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is a highly ...
Tag this Judgment!Muniammal Vs. the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluka Police Station
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ163
Kanakaraj, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the first accused in S.C. No. 48 of 1985 against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge of Madurai North at Dindigul, holding the first accused guilty of an offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced thereunder for imprisonment for life. The appeal has been preferred by the first accused from jail and we had appointed Mr. P. Vellaichamy, an experienced counsel for defending the appellant. 2. The short facts leading to the case are as follows :- The first accused Muniammal was married to one Sangili (PW 1) about ten years prior to the occurrence, which event took place on 21-10-1984. They were living in Gandhi Nagar in Chettinaikenpatti village. They had three children; one male child (PW 4) and the other two female children. The last of the children by name Eswari, who was four years old, at the time of occurrence, is the deceased in this case. The first accused was aged about 40 years at the time of th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Vasudevan Vs. S. and S. Construction by Its Proprietor S. Srinivasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad177; 1995(2)CTC507
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4327 of 1995 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras has preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In many aspects, this is indeed, a very strange civil revision petition. This revision is against the order dated 6-7-1995 and I.A. No. 8729 of 1995 in the above said suit. The said I.A. seeks for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents from evicting the plaintiff except in accordance with law. When the I. A; originally came up before the Court below on 29-6-1995, a counsel filed Vakalath for the 1st respondent therein on that day itself and sought time to file vakalath for the 2nd respondent also. So, the Court below adjourned the matter to 6-7-95 to enable the said counsel to file Vakalat for the 2nd respondent and also to file counter on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. On 6-7-1995, the order that was passed (which'alone has been challenged in this civil revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. V. Ashvinraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad285
1. The defendant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is the appellant in this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree granted by the Courts below for possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent plaintiff. 2. Only a short point is involved in this second appeal and the arguments of both the learned Counsel were heard. 2A. The case of the plaintiff's in brief, is as follows:-- The defendant is tenants at suf-ference in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,100/-. The plaintiffs grandfather entered into a registered lease deed on 16-3-1964 with Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., for a period of 20 years from 1-4-1963 till 31-3-1983. Subsequently, the said company became Government of India undertaking with effect from 1976. By efflux of time, the lease came to an end on 31-3-1983. The abovesaid plaintiffs grandfather sold the suit property on 21-5-1972 in favour of the plaintiff and the lessee attorned the tenancy to t...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Subaida Beevi Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC14; 1995(80)ELT485(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging the notice dated 12-4-1995 issued by the first respondent herein directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- imposed by the third respondent.2. It is the case of the petitioner that third respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- in his proceedings dated 11-11-1991. The petitioner has filed an appeal in Appeal No 562/91 on the file of the fifth respondent against the proceedings of the third respondent. The appeal is still pending. Along with the appeal the petitioner has filed an application to dispense with the penalty since it is the condition precedent to entertain the appeal filed under Section 52 of the said Act. The fifth respondent-appellate authority has not disposed of the application and also did not pass any orders in the petition filed by the petitioner to dispense with the penalty amount. In fact, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »