Chennai Court August 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.
V. Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ458
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5389 of 1994 is the appellant in this appeal. He filed the writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 16.3.1994 in Lr. No. Ref. OSB/TN & P/IOC/1538 and quash the same and consequently to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 3 from appointing any distributor- Indane at Mahe, Union Territory of Pondicherry, pursuant to the interview held on 16.3.1994 or from giving effect to any decision taken by the 1st respondent for awarding the dealership to the 4th respondent.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The 2nd respondent issued a notice in the Indian Express dated 11.7.1993 calling for applications for appointment of Indane Distributorship at Mahe. The appellant submitted his application in the prescribed form to respondents 1 and 2 on 17.8.1993. He was directed to appear for a pe...
A.P. Sagar and ors. Vs. Govindaswami Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ146
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 268 of 1987 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, are the appellants in this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in short is as follows: The respondent is the owner of 'A', 'B' and 'C portions of the suit schedule property. The said property is the ancestral property of the respondent. Under the registered lease deed Ex. A-1 dated 13.11.1967, the respondent had leased out portion 'A' of the suit property to one Pavadai Naicker, the father of the appellants/defendants. On the same day, he had leased out the remaining portions of the suit property in favour of one Sinna Ponnu, sister of Pavadai Naicker under Ex. A-2 lease deed. The said Sinna Ponnu had vacated and handed over possession of 'B' and 'C portions of the suit property to the respondent. However, Pavadai Naicker continued to keep portion 'A' ofthe suit property and was paying rent to the respondent. Pavadai Naicker died...
M.R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Special Officer, Corporation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ108
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other order or orders or appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records connected with proceedings No. 1551/85, dated 7.4.1985 of the 2nd respondent in Survey No. 2191/1 No. 4A, Nelson Road, Sarthy Nagar, Srirangam, Trichy District and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent not to acquire the petitioner's land to an extent of 6,700 sq. ft.2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he purchased a plot of land measuring to an extent of 6,700 sq. ft. in the year 1983 for a consideration of Rs. 16,400. The petitioner along with four persons approached the authorities for approval of the lay out to the then Srirangam Municipality in the same S. No.2191/1 and the same was sanctioned on 12.7.1984, subject to certain conditions. Some of the important conditions were that the petitioner shoul...
Jayarama Ramachandra Reddy and Others Vs. J. Sathyanarayana and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad168; 1995(2)CTC258
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Hosur, in I.A. No. 24 of 1994 in RCOP No. 7 of 1992 dated 21-11-1994, refusing permission to the petitioners to file additional counter-statement, in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1992. The petitioners herein are the tenants. The respondents are the landlords. The respondents filed an application under Sections 10(2)(1); 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for wilful default, owners' occupation and for demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners herein have filed I.A. No. 24 of 1994 for filing additional counter-statement and the same was rejected by the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Hosur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have approached this Court.2. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The reasons given by the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Ho...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)466; [1996]219ITR203(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. In all these tax cases under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the assessee is the same, it being Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore. It is a State Government undertaking in which the assets of the erstwhile undertaking, which was taken over by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1973, came to be vested. Tax case No. 226 of 1986 related to the asst. yr. 1978-79. It arises out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 11th Jan., 1983, In ITA No. 677 (Mds) of 1982. Tax Cases Nos. 958 to 963 of 1984 arise out of the common order dt 21st Dec., 1982 of the Tribunal. Tax Cases Nos. 958 to 960 of 1984 have been preferred by the Revenue in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75 to 1976-77. Tax Cases Nos. 961 to 963 of 1984 have been preferred by the assessee in respect of the same asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1976-77. 2. The only question of law referred to this Court in Tax Case No. 226 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Krishnaswamy and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR157(Mad)
ORDER--Penalty under s. 271(1)(c).Ratio :Question not arising out of Tribunal's order cannot be considered by the High Court.Held :In the present case, strictly speaking the Tribunal has not expressly held that for the default committed by the accountant, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied. So the question referred to this court actually does not arise.Application :Also to current assessment years.A. Y. :1979-80 and 1980-81Income Tax Act 1961 s.256Income Tax Act 1961 s.271(1)(c) Abdul Hadi, J.1. The common questions referred to this court in these two tax case references, preferred by the Revenue are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified and had valid material in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified and had valid material in holding...
Rex Trading Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC74; 1996(86)ELT189(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 4th, Wednesday the 5th, Friday the 7th, Monday the 10th, Tuesday the 11th, Wednesday the 12th, Thursday the 20th, Friday the 21st and Monday the 24th days of July 1995, and on this day respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 6-8-1984 and made herein and the Counter affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the Order in (i) Show Cause Notice to S8/185/84-SIB/SIB-70/84, dated 20-7-1984 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, and (ii) Public Notice No. 44-ITC (PN)/83, dated 17-10-1983 on the file of the Ist Respondent respectively and comprised in the return of the Respondents in both the petitions to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Basha, Senior Counsel for Mr. E. S. Govindan, Advocates for the Petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. V. T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Additional Central Government S...
Arumugan and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ525
Janarthanam, J. 1. The appellants in C.A. Nos. 287 and 141 of 1987 are respectively accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 72 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, Anna District, Dindigul. A 1 was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Likewise, A2 was found guilty under Section 302 red with Section 109 I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present actions had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are :- (a) Accused 1 and 2 are the residents of Dindigul. One Murugan (since deceased) had been residing at Paraikulam, a segment of Dindigul, P.W. 1 was originally married to one Sundaram some three decades before and through him she had three off spring-two male and one female. Somehow or other, she developed illicit contract with the deceased Murugan and came up to live with him for the past 20 years prior to occurrence, which event happened on 17-4-1986. ...
Ayyasamy and Another Vs. State Through the Inspector of Police Vigilan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ119
ORDER : Whereas Tvl. M. A. Ayyaswami and P. Krishnaswamy, Public Servants were functioning as Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order and Grade A.P.C./Station Writer respectively as Kundadam Police Station during August, 1986. Whereas it is alleged that on 23-8-86 Thiru Thiruvengadaswamy presented a petition before the said Thiru Krishnaswamy, regarding the assault of his'servant Thiru Sooradevan, by Annadurai and 12 others on 22-8-86, as the said Thiru Ayyaswamy was not in the station then and that Thiru Krishnaswamy gave receipt No. 41/86 to Thiru Thiruvengadaswamy and asked him to wait for Tr. Ayyaswamy and that Thiru Ayyaswamy came at about 3 A.M. and asked Thiru Thiruvengadeswamy to meet him on the next day. Whereas, it is further alleged that on 24-8-86 Thiru Thiruvengadaswamy met Thiru Ayyaswamy at Kundadam Police Station at about 11.00 A.M. and that at that time Tr. Ayyaswamy demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the said Thiruvengada...
Praveen Kumar R. JaIn Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT353(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 12-7-1995 in W.P. Nos. 8481 and 8482 of 1995 whereunder the learned Judge has chosen to dismiss the writ petitions, declining thereby to interfere at the present stage of the proceedings relying upon the decision reported in 1992 LW (Cri) 257 (State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal). The second respondent herein has filed two complaints under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the appellant herein for an alleged violation of Section 18(a)(i), punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and Section 18B punishable under Section 28A of the Act in the circumstances to be noticed hereinafter. The appellant is a proprietor of a pharmaceutical firm which is licensed to sell, stock and distribute pharmaceutical specialities in wholesale as per licence granted to the firm in Form Nos. 20-B and 21-B. The appellant claims to have purchased 52,980 vials of OXETERACYCLINE I.P....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »