Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
Sri Chamundi Leather and Two ors. Vs. the Collector and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC355
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners. The proceedings of the Tahsildar issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is being challenged on the ground that the Notice as required under Section 7 of the said Act has not been issued to the petitioners. Issue of Section 7 notice is a condition precedent for the issue of Order under Section 6. When the matter came up for admission, I requested the learned Additional Government Pleader to get the records, since the question involved is too short and on perusal of the records the Writs can be disposed of.2. Today the Government Pleader produced the records. From the records, there is nothing to show that a notice as required under Section 7 of the said Act has been served on the petitioners. Hence the condition precedent to issue the Order under Section 6 has not been complied with by the Authorities before ever the Order under Section 6 of the said Act is passed. Hence all the Writ Petitions are allowed and...
Tag this Judgment!J. Sudershan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC191
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for the issue of a Writ of mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to cause an enquiry to the circumstances that made the third respondent to file a petition before the fourth respondent, when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India.2. It is the case of the petitioner that in his enrollment form dated 11.4.1990 he has not mentioned about the pendency of certain Criminal cases, since he was not involved in any criminal case in his individual capacity. But, however, on this ground the second respondent removed the petitioner from the rolls of advocates on 12.2.1994.3. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. 10165/94 against the order of the second respondent and obtained an order of stay on 7.6.1994. Ultimately, the said order as vacated on 39.3.95 and the petitioner moved Writ Appeal in W.A.334/95 against the order of dismissing the stay petition. The writ appeal was dismissed with a direc...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Nagarajan and anr. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC142
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the validity of acquisition of 61 cents in R.S.Nos.29 and 30, Velacherry, Madras under Notification dated 19.5.1973 Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged. The acquisition is for the purpose of formation of a by-pass road connecting Murmalong Bridge and Irumpuliyur Road. The property originally belonged to one Bagyalakshmiamma, who sold it on 20.11.1955 to one Pallat Sankaran Nair. Though the purchase was in the year 1955, the said Sankaran Nair did not get the revenue records mutated in his favour. However, he got copies of the proceedings of acquisition Under Section 4(1) of the Act and he sent a communication to the Special Deputy Collector on 10.10.1975 by which he informed that portions of the property had been sold. He did not however take care to give the particulars as to the sales made by him. He did not even mention the names of the purchasers. Yet another letter was sent b...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1999Mad100
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The petitioner is a Member of the Madras Bar. He filedthis public interest litigation for the issue of a Writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following are his prayers in the writ petition : (a) To direct the 3rd respondent to release 89 TMC of the surplus water from its west flowing rivers of Kerala State as shown in the Table Annexure I; (b) To direct the 2nd respondent to apply to the National Water Resources Council reportedly set up by the 1st respondent to lay down; broad, technical, economic and financial policy for irrigation and drinking water as between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu; suggest priorities for accelerated development of the water resources of each State, Kerala and Tamil Nadu; priorities for use of water as between irrigation, power generation, industrial and domestic purposes of each State or region; and to evolve a policy of transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas conforming to highest na...
Tag this Judgment!Vadivel Vs. Packialakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ300
ORDER1. The first accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in C.C. No. 31 of 198, tried upon a private complaint for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code along with two others, who was convicted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, felt aggrieved by the judgement dated 30-8-89 canvasses the same for want of legality, propriety and validity in this criminal revision. 2. On 20-1-1982 at Moonumothemmozhi in Nagarcoil District the revison petitioner being the first accused, along with his wife second accused, by name Bakiathai, approached P.W.1 Bagialakshmi to get a gold chain weighing about five sovereigns and another chain weighing about 2 1/2 sovereigns to attend a marriage of their near relative in some other village by giving an assurance to the respondent to return the jewels after attending the marriage and on such representation they made the said Bagialakshmi to part with the jewels and thereafter, they never retu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aquapump Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Mad)506; [1996]218ITR427(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These tax cases by the Revenue under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, relate to the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1980-81 and the common questions referred to this Court are as follows : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no capital asset of enduring nature had been acquired by the assessee by payment of the royalty and, hence, no portion of it should be disallowed as capital in nature (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding and had valid materials to hold that nothing was conveyed by Texmo Industries to the assessee by way of an asset in accordance with the agreement except the use of the trade mark and access to the technical information?' 2. Though the said questions have been set out as two questions, they actually relate to the question whether the expenditures of Rs. 21,60,682, Rs. 2,83,655 and Rs....
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT35(Mad)
ORDER1. In respect of seizure of 900 gold bars at Kerala by the Special Customs Preventive Unit, Calicut, a case was initiated under the Customs Act by the Central Excise Collectorate, by the issuance of a show cause notice dated 11-8-1989. Ultimately, the said proceedings ended in the levy of a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the petitioner. It is stated that the appeal against the said levy of penalty is pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that simultaneously action is being taken by the second respondent for the seizure of gold bars which were transported to Coimbatore by one P. B. Nawaz Khan. While taking action against the said P. B. Nawaz Khan and his associates, a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner asking him to show-cause why penalty should not be levied on him with respect to the dealings of the said Nawaz Khan. According to the petitioner, the sale and purchase of abo...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC67
ORDERShivappa, J.1. Heard: Normally I decline to grant bail wherever the persons are arrayed as accused persons for an offence Under Section 376 IPC. But this case has a special feature and I have to make departure in my view. The facts are as follows : The petitioner is arrayed as an accused for an offence Under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC in crime No. 351 of 1995 on the file of Poonamallee Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged victim is aged about 55 and she is a tenant and the petitioner's relatives being the landlord had already initiated proceedings against the victim to vacate the premises. Since the petitioner asked the complainant to vacate the premises, she has filed the false complaint.2. According to the prosecution, the incilent took place on 9.6.1995 at 20.30 hours. The petitioner was arrested on 10.6.1995. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim was not subjected to any medical examination and no complaint was filed by the vi...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramalingam Vs. the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC500; (1995)IIMLJ541
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated November 24, 1984 passed by the first respondent in I. A. Nos. 452 and 453 of 1984 in I.D. No. 322 of 1981 and has sought for quashing the same. 3. Briefly stated, the facts which are considered necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are the following : Petitioner is the owner of a Cinema Theatre by name Ramesh Theatre, Cudallore. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute over his non-employment under sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and the same was referred for adjudication to the first respondent in I.D. No. 322 of 1981. The petitioner had entrusted the management of the theatre temporarily to another person and was living at Madras for certain domestic reasons beyond his control, and he was not posted with the information relating to the hearing of the aforementioned industrial dis...
Tag this Judgment!Praveenkumar R. JaIn Vs. the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC383
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions to quash the criminal complaint in C.C.No. 43 and 44 of 1995 on the file of the first respondent. The said complaints have been filed by the second respondent herein.2. The second respondent had inspected the Government Hospital, Dindigul and took the vials of two injections, one is Oxeteracycline I.P. and the other is Adernaline I.P. on 28.10.93 for test. After following the formalities, he had sent the samples to Government Analyst for report. By report dated 23.8.94, the Government Analyst had informed that the said medicines are 'not of standard quality'. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein. The petitioner had sent a reply. It is admitted, due to his own mistake intyping the address, the replied were not reached the second respondent. The second respondent filed two complaints in respect of two medicines against the petitioner for violation of Section 18(a)(i) and 18B of the Drugs and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »