Chennai Court September 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.
S. Balamurugan Vs. the Inspector General of Prisons and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1779
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. S. Balamurugan, M. Natarajan and Ramar alias Ramaswamy, the petitioners in these habeas corpus petition, have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a declaration that their detention in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is illegal and to direct their retransfer to Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 2. The brief facts are as follows :- The petitioners are life convicts serving their term of sentence, after their appeals before the High Court were dismissed. The petitioners were originally lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1194 of 1995 had undergone 8 years of imprisonment at Central Prison, Palaymakkottai i.e. from 16-7-1986 to 18-4-1994 and then transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore on 19-4-1994 and again on 2-1-1995, he was transferred back to Palayamkottai and once again re-transferred to Cuddalore Prison on 5-2-1995 against his consent and will. Likewise, the petitioner in H.C.P. No....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Manickasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR133(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. All these tax cases references under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relate to the same assessee. Tax Cases Nos. 408 and 409 of 1982, both preferred by the Revenue and relating to the assessment year 1975-76, arise out of the same order of the Tribunal, which dismissed the Departmental appeal before it and allowed the cross-objection therein by the assessee. Tax Case No. 978 of 1986 is also by the Revenue against another order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1981-82. The sole question referred to this court in Tax Case No. 978 of 1986 is almost identical with the first of the two questions referred to this court in the other two tax cases, while the second of the said two questions therein is different. 2. The first question in Tax Cases Nos. 408 and 409 of 1982 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of rules 5 and 7 in Part IV of...
Enforcement Directorate Vs. Syed Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT277(Mad)
ORDER1. These petitioners coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the respective memo of grounds filed in support thereof and seen hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Kumar, Spl. P. P. for FERA, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions, and of Mr. Vabibulla Badra, Senior Advocate for the respondent in each of these petitions, the Court made the following order :- All these petitions, since common question is involved, are clubbed together, heard and common order is passed. 2. The petitioner is the Enforcement Officer. He is seeking for cancellation of the bail granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Economic Offences-I, Madras on 20-4-1995. According to the petitioner the enquiry conducted and the documents seized, revealed that respondents have vilated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It is also submitted that the presence of the respondents is very much necessary since the investigation is at the preliminary stage and having rega...
Vincent EdwIn Vs. Sheela Devasugantham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: II(1997)DMC121
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This is an application under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, for the passing of a decree of judicial separation.2. It is averred in the petition that the parties were married on 7.7.1989 at Madras and the marriage was conducted at Emmanuel Methodist Church Madras- 7. It is further alleged that ever since the date of marriage, the respondent, except for a few months, started showing indifferent attitude towards the petitioner as well as to her in-laws even though the petitioner and his parents never showed any ill-feelings and they thought that the respondent would adjust with them in due course, but it was not so. It is said that even though on the date of the petition, it was more than four years since the date of marriage, she lived not even for a year with the petitioner. It is further said that the respondent had left to her parents' house in the month of April 1990 for confinement and a female child was born on 12.7.1990 and the respondent came with the ...
The Management of K.P.V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ111Mad
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. This is a petition by the employer who is aggrieved by the award made by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 3 of 1986, by which the petitioner was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent - workman with continuity of service and backwages. 2. It is not in dispute that the concerned workman, the 1st respondent herein was initially appointed on September 11, 1969 in the services of the petitioner as a Foreman in its Dock Office. Clause 7 of the order of that appointment provides as follows: 'Though you are posted initially to do work in the Dock Office you shall however be liable to do work, in the Main or Dock Office of any type of work involving writing or such like desk work' In the year 1982, on June 13, 1982, the work-man was transferred by the petitioner from the Dock Office to the Main Office. It may be mentioned here that the Main Office is said to situate across the road from the Port within which the Dock Office of the petitioner is located. The workm...
Ganesan and ors. Vs. Doraisamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC603; (1996)IMLJ314
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The first defendant in the suit O.S. No. 1166 of 1989 died on 25.5.1990. The petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit file Application No. 379 of 1992 on 8.7.1992. But, in the affidavit filed in support of the said application it was stated that the first defendant died on 8.4.1992. In that application, the proposed legal representatives filed a counter on 8.9.1992 pointing out that the first defendant died on 25.5.1990 and the application was out of time. The matter was being adjourned from time to time for enquiry. Ultimately it was heard on 17.11.1992. The court dismissed the application holding that it was out of time. The Court pointed out that as per the death certificate which was filed by the proposed legal representatives, the date of death was 25.5.1990 and not 8.4.1992 as alleged by the plaintiffs.2. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 116 of 1995 on 8.2.1995 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure pra...
G. Chambi Raj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad56
ORDER1. The petitioner, Secretary, All India Lawyers' Union has filed W.P. No. 12147/95 byway of public interest litigation, seeking for the relicf of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering in any manner with the free access of the public to public amenities and utilities like electricity, roads, pavements, water, transport (public and private) or misuse of official machinery for private functions of persons holding public office and other acts in contravention of law.2. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the fifth respondent herein, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is celebrating the marriage of her foster son Mr. Sudhakar on 7-9-1995 at Madras and the said function is purely a private family affair. But unfortunately the State's resources are being exploited by the fifth respondent and deployed extensively to facilities celebration of the function in medieval splendour. The peti-.tioner narrated as to what are all the arrangements being made for the said ma...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.C.S. Rig Service
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR64(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal below held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the special rate of 30 per cent. provided in entry III(ii) D(9) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in respect of rigs and compressors used for drilling borewells. If the said special rates were not applicable, admittedly only ten per cent. depreciation could be granted. But, the Tribunal has held that the rigs and compressors used by the assessee form part of 'motor lorries' spoken to in the abovesaid item D(9) under the Income-tax Rules. But, in another tax case reported in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service : [1992]194ITR12(Mad) , arising out of another order of the Tribunal dated July 30, 1985, in I.T.A. No. 1092 of 1984, this court held in an almost identical situation that the abovesaid rigs and compressors cannot be integral parts of the abovesaid motor lorries. The rele...
Rani Mangammal Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramasamy thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC465
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of M.C.O.P. No. 88 of 1991. The original petition was disposed alongwith M.C.O.P. Nos. 87, 89 and 99 of 1991. All the claims related to the same accident. We have today disposed of C.M.A. Nos. 1150 of 1993 and 347 of 1995 arising out of M.C.O.P. Nos. 87 and 172 of 1991. We have considered the question of negligence in those a appeals and upheld the fi nding s of the Tribunal. It will not be necessary for us to consider the question once again in this appeal. We confirm the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and hold that the accident occurred entirely due to the negligence of the appellant-Corporation bus.2. In this case, the claimants are the respondents. The deceased is a boy aged about 15. He was studying in IX standard. The first claimant is a businessman. In the original petition, he has stated that the deceased was a student assisting the father in business. He has also stated in the petition that the deceased was an inte...
N. Raju Reddiar and anr. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ561
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The plaintiffs, who succeeded in part before the learned single Judge of this Court, are the appellants in the above appeal and the respondents in the memorandum of cross objections filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who are the respondents in the appeal.2. The appellants filed the suit C.S. No. 678 of 1982 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,08,820 together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs. The respondents/defendants invited tenders (Specification No. P. 543) for transport of iron and steel materials including unloading, weighment and stocking from various stock-yards of the supplies to the destination stores of the respondents during the period 1.9.1978 to 31.8.1979. In pursuance of the said tender, the 1st appellant submitted his tender form on 12.7.1978 along with a letter dated 11.7.1978 quoting the following rates:Rate per kil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »