Chennai Court August 1995 Judgments
Kamala Swaminathan Vs. the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC620
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohammed, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, or order or Direction in the nature of a Writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent in N.Dis.32005/D4/95 dated 30.5.1995 and to quash the same.2. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition states that she is the registered owner of vehicle TN-07-C-7173. The further states that the vehicle is covered by a State Wide Contract Carriage permit for omni bus issued by the State Transport Authority, Madras-5. The seating capacity of the vehicle as mentioned in the permit is 45+1. It is further stated that the petitioner wanted to reduce the seating capacity from 46 to 36 seats and therefore, she made an application dated 9.5.1995 before the Registering Authority (Motor Vehicles) Madras viz., the respondent herein. Further, the application of the petitioner was returned on 30.5.1995 with the following endorsement.'The ap...
Tag this Judgment!L.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC115
ORDER1. In this writ appeal by the petitioner in W.P. No. 7010 of 1992 against the dismissal of the said writ petition, the only question is whether the 2nd respondent, viz., the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchi, has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 30.12.1991. Even in the writ petition, only the said question was argued and the learned single Judge has held in his order dated 14.7.1995 that the said collector has the said jurisdiction. 2. The impugned order, inter alia confiscates to the Government of India, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, 650 gold bars seized earlier at Coimbatore from one Nawaz Khan and levies penalty under Section 112(b) of the abovesaid Customs Act and under Section 74 of the abovesaid Gold (Control) Act, of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, on the abovesaid Nawaz Khan and the appellant Abdul Majeed herein. No doubt, the said order also levied similar penalties on certain other pe...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Rajendran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4195
ORDERWhereas Thiru N. M. Rajendran, who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes) J. 1 Saidapet '(Crime) Police Station, Madras-15 is a Public Servant : Whereas it is alleged that on 17-3-90, in the evening at the house of Thiru Ramasamy son of Muthuswamy, at 21, Appasamy Pillai Lane, Washermanpet, Madras, Thiru N. M. Rajendran, committed extortion by putting in fear the said Thiru Ramasamy that he would be implicated in a false case for receiving of stolen property and dishonestly induced him to deliver to Thiru N. M. Rajendran a 'Sharp' VCR worth Rs. 4,800/- belonging to the said Ramaswamy. Whereas it is further alleged that in the course of the same transaction, Thiru N. M. Rajendran, being a public servant pursuant to the demand made by him to the said Thiru Ramasamy on 17-3-80 evening, of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and to his reducing the demand to Rs. 1,500/- accepted the said sum of Rs. 1,500/- from the said Thiru Ramasamy on 20-3-90 at about 8 p.m. at Hotel Metro 12 Flower street, A...
Tag this Judgment!J.M.A. Mohamed Farook and Others Vs. Aziz Company Private Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas29(Mad)
Govardhan, J. 1. In this application, the petitioners contend that the shareholders of the company in liquidation have decided unanimously at the meeting of the shareholders to revive the company and permission is sought for from the court to revive the company. The Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Southern Region, in his report has stated that the company was order to be would up by order dated September 16, 1960, and the official liquidator attached to the High Court became the liquidator of the company and he has taken control and custody of all the assets and realised all of them except an investment of 76,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. It is also reported by the Regional Director that the official liquidator has settled the claims of the creditors of the company in full and as per the orders of this court in C. A. No. 1038 of 1989 and he has returned the capital to the contributories in full except the shares which are in listed comp...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Director of Agriculture (inputs) Directorate of Agriculture, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ530
Raju, J.1. These appeals involve consideration of a common issue and, as a matter of fact, submissions have been made in common. The main judgment in the Writ Petitions has been rendered in W.P. No.380 of 1991, against which W.A.No. 790 of 1993 has been filed by the Department. As a matter of fact, in the other cases, the learned Single Judge has simply followed the judgment rendered in W.P.No. 380 of 1991 and allowed the Writ Petitions. Therefore, for a proper appreciation of the various issues raised, the facts in W.A.No. 790 to 1993 may be referred to in some detail. 2. W.A.No. 790 of 1993 has been filed by the Department against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19-6-1992 in W.P. No.380 of 1991, allowing the Writ Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the proceedings of the 2nd appellant bearing No. PPS. 7.212993/90, dated 13-12-1990, confirming the order of the 1st appellant bearing No. PPs. 7.212993/89, dated 6-11-1990. The Agricultural O...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.S. Ahamed Ibrahim and Bros. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: [1997]223ITR860(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner. In the asst. yr. 1980-81, the assessee filed a return under the Agrl. IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee did not file a composition application. A notice under s. 16(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee has submitted a return showing the agricultural income for the period of twelve months ended 31st March, 1980. He had shown an income of Rs. 19,221. A notice under s. 17(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, and another notice was also issued. Before the AO it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the lands belong to Thiruvalargal A. M. S. Hameed Ibrahim, A. M. S. Ahamed Ibrahim and A. M. S. Lebbai Sahib, and the assessment has to be finalised under the status of 'tenants-in-common'. According to the assessee, after the demise of their father, there was no partition of properties among his brothers and they are under common management for the purpose of earning income. The AO stat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR684(Mad)
The Court1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire gratuity provision of Rs. 24,05,655 should be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee is a textile mill. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1974. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, had come into force in September, 1972. But the assessee made no provision in its accounts for the financial year ended 31st March, 1973, relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The assessee thereafter for the financial year ended 31st March, 1974, relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75, made a provision for gratuity for its workers in its acco...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC219; 1995(80)ELT271(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging an order passed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent herein, refusing to waive the deposit required under Section 129-E of the customs Act, 1962 in entirety, by reducing the said deposit to a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as against Rs. 20 lakhs. According to the appellant, the entire deposit should have been waived by the Tribunal, in view of the fact that no opportunity was given to him for personal hearing. Learned counsel submits that under Section 124 of the Customs Act, a show cause notice should have been issued and again a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter should also be given. Thus, according to the appellant, two opportunities are provided in this Section, viz. one by giving a show cause notice and another, by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 2. On facts of the case admittedly, a show cause notice was issued, but no reply w...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam and Another Vs. Nagalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad146
ORDER1. This appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattu-kottai, granting injunction against the appellants, who are the defendants 4 and 5 in the main suit. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 206 of 1993 against his brother, mother and sister, who are the defendants 1 to 3 and the alienees of his brother the appellants herein.2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, contended before the lower court that the properties mentioned in the scheduled are joint family properties in the joint possession of himself and the defendants 1 to 3 that his brother, the first defendant, was evading partition of his one-fourth share though he was demanding on several occasions and the appellants (defendants 4 and 5) were also threatening to interfere with his possession and therefore, he filed the suit for partition of his one fourth share and also for injunction against these appellants, who are threatening to trespass into the suit property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Srinivas and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)445; [1996]219ITR636(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. Under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 182(3) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of ascertaining the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income of a non-resident partner, his share income alone should be considered and tax determined accordingly and his other income from any other source should not be included for the purpose of determining the rate of tax payable on such share income ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee-firm filed a return of income on behalf of Sri P. R. Srinivasan, partner, admitting a total income of Rs. 29,180. The said Srinivasan, who is a non-resident partner, besides having the share income of Rs. 29,260 in the assessee-firm, he also had share incomes from two other fir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »