Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Xavier Vs. Vincent Raj Alias Maria Vincent Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3437
ORDER1. These two Revisions are directed against the orders of discharge by the learned Judicial Magistrate Padmanabhapuram under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5719 of 1991 and Calendar Case No. 126 of 1991. As the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram allowed the Petition to discharge the accused and the Calendar Case also was ordered discharging the accused, these two revisions have been filed separately against the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 2. The respondents herein have been alleged for the commission of the offences under Sections 323 and 325 on 31-7-1990 at 8.00 p.m. and though a complaint was launched in the Police Station Thakkalai the Station Officer without registering the case sent the Revision petitioner the victim to the hospital for treatment and the F.I.R. was registered only on 1-3-1991. The accused who are the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code to d...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.V. Perumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC86
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The department is the petitioner. Purchase tax under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was imposed on the assessee on the purchase turnover of Rs. 26,933 relating to the purchase of art silk yarn. According to the department, the assessee purchased art silk yarn and consumed the same for weaving cloth. According to assessee, section 7-A of the Act is not attracted because the art silk yarn purchased by the assessee was not consumed in the manufacture of silk cloth. The assessment year involved in this case is 1976-77. During the relevant assessment year, the crucial word used in section 7-A is that the raw materials purchased should be 'consumed' in manufacturing the end-product. Though it was by later amendment the word used was introduced, but during the relevant assessment year the crucial word in section 7-A is 'consumed'. Hence the point for consideration is whether the assessee has consumed the raw materials purchased, viz., the art s...
Duraisami and anr. Vs. Rasayammal (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC88; (1995)IIMLJ574
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were judgment-debtors 3 and 4 in EP.No.185 of 1979 in O.S.No.817 of 1966 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Erode and the revision petitioners herein, challenging the order passed by the executing court on 20.1.1988 in the above matter, for its want of propriety and legality, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein had obtained a simple money decree in the above suit O.S.No.817 of 1966 against Kumaraswamy Gounder and others, including the respondents/defendants 3 and 4, who are the revision petitioners herein on 27.9.1966. Subsequently, since the original parties to the suit, the decree holder died, their legal representatives as shown in the execution petition were added and brought on record. An execution petition E.P.R.No.948 of 1967 was filed against the judgment-debtors, including the revision petitioners herein and whereupon, a sum of Rs. 721.85 was recovered as part satisfaction...
Duraisami and anr. Vs. Rasayammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ574
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were judgment-debtors 3 and 4 in E.P. No. 185 of 1979 in O.S. No. 817 of 1966 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Erode and the revision petitioners herein, challenging the order passed by the executing court on 20.1.1988 in the above matter, for its want of propriety and legality, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein had obtained a simple money decree in the above suit O.S. No. 817 of 1966 against Kumaraswany Gounder and others, including the respondents/defendants 3 and 4, who are the revision petitioners herein on 27.9.1966. Subsequently, since the original parties to the suit, the decree holder dried, their legal representatives as shown in the execution petition were added and brought on record. An execution petition E.P.R. No. 948 of 1967 was filed against the judgment-debtors, including the revision petitioners herein and whereupon, a sum of Rs. 721.85 was recovered as part s...
J. Zeenath Beevi Vs. N.V.K. Mohammed Sultan Rowther and Sons Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas530(Mad)
S.S. Subramani J.1. Original Application No. 961 of 1992 is an application for an interim injunction restraining the first respondent/defendant, its agents, men, servants, dealers, distributors, stockists and other persons acting for and on behalf of the first respondent from manufacturing, marketing, dealing, supplying, selling or otherwise dealing with scented betelnuts and tobacco under the trade names of Roja, Raja and Kera and using the trade marks comprising the words 'Roja, Raja and Kera' and/or the picture consisting of a red rose with green leaves and/or any other names, or marks, figures, or pictorial representations having a similarity in visual or phonetic similarity including the name of Roja Gold or any other similar names, pending disposal of the suit. 2. Original Application No. 962 of 1992 is an application for the appointment of a court receiver to take charge, collect from the market, the first respondent, its dealers, distributors, men, agents and also from the mark...
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC41; 1995(80)ELT737(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the Copra Cess Act, 1979 (Central Act 4 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is unconstitutional, illegal and inoperative and for other consequential relief. 2. The petitioner company manufactures soaps, vegetable products, etc., at Bombay and has branches in the States of Kerala, Maharashtra, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, etc. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well as under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Copra is purchased from the various growers and manufacturers in the open market, crushed into oil which oil is consumed in the manufacture of its products. The copra purchased by the petitioner is subjected to purchase tax while the oil and oil cakes are subjected to sale tax as and when they are sold. In addition to the above payment of sales tax, the petitioner was also paying a cess at the rate of 60 Paise per quintal for the copra crush...
B. Adhikari Vs. Ponraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas431(Mad); 1996CriLJ180
N. Arumugham, J.1. The petitioner Adhikari, being the accused in C.C. No. 6296 of 1991 on the file of the XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, for the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, found guilty and convicted thereon, however, who lost the appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, on April 24, 1995, has come forward with this revision challenging the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the judgment and sentence recorded by the trial court as above-referred. 2. For the purpose of his business the revision petitioner had a loan of Rs. 20,000 from the respondent herein and for the return of the same he had given a cheque to the respondent on July 5, 1991, which upon accounting was returned as dishonoured. On appraising of the said fact, the cheque was dishonoured on August 27, 1991. However, on September 2, 1991, a notice on behalf of the respondent was given to t...
Balamurugan Vs. Palanivel and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ167; 1995(2)CTC52
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. This habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner for the production of the detenue Kavitha, aged about 22 years, said to have been married by the petitioner. The first respondent is the father of the detenue. The first respondent was represented through his counsel and he filed a counter-affidavit. According to the petitioner, he married the detenue, Kavitha on 12-5-1995 in Vadagasi Sripudhu Amman Temple according to Hindu rites. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that no such marriage took place between his daughter, the detenue and the petitioner herein. According to the first respondent the petitioner high-handed by and illegally stating that he married the detenue and the petitioner is thereby black-mailing the family of the first respondent. Even during the pendency of this habeas corpus petition, it is stated that the petitioner herein used to go to the house of the detenue threatened them that he would carry the dete...
Thamilarasan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ274
Janarthanam, J. 1. The Appellant who was accused in S.C. No. 62 of 1987 on the file of Court of Session, South Arcot Division at Cuddalore, was found guilty under Section 302, I.P.C, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 2. Brief Facts are :- (a) The accused is a resident of Vayalamoor village, a rustic atmosphere falling within the jurisdiction of Puduchatram police station, P.W. 1 is his wife. Their marriage took place in the year 1984. Of the lawful wedlock, a female offspring came into existence. On the morning of 1-11-1986, P.W. 1, the wife of the accused gave birth to a male issue in the house of the accused. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the sisters of the accused. One Chinnadorai is his brother. The accused had been employed as a Kalasi at Neyveli. It appears that for the purpose of avocation, he had been staying at Neyveli and visiting his house often and on. (b) 1-11-1986 happe...
Vincent Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC351
Rengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of conviction passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A. No. 180 of 1991 for the of fence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, confirming the conviction imposed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 155 of 1989 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The accused and the victim girl belong to the same village living at a short distance. The evidence of PW1 is that the revision petitioner expressed that he liked her very much, that he would marry only her and taking her to his garden land, he had sexual intercourse with her. It is also evidence that on the promise of marrying her, the revision petitioner was having sexual intercourse with her once in 3 days for about six months and as she became pregnant, three days before 14.12.1988, she told him that she had conceived and has become pregnant and that he should arrange for marriage, but he ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »