Chennai Court December 1996 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.
In Re: Basith and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3232
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In S.C. No. 3/96 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, 'Trichy, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 302 read with 109 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to death. The present appeal has been resorted to by the appellants. Besides this reference also has been made under Section 366 Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court for confirmation of death sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 2. The indictment against the appellants is that on 21-9-1995 at about 1.30 p.m., in the house door No. 52, Kaja Thoppu Tennur, Trichy, the first appellant at the instigation of the appellants 2 and 3 poured Kerosene over the body of the victim and set fire, with the result the victim died at 12.00 p.m., on 26-9-1995. 3. The short facts leading to the conviction were as follows :- (a) The unfortunate victim in this case Sherfunnisa alias Rajathi was the wife of the first appellant Dasth. The appellants 2 and 3 are the parents of the f...
K.T.M.S. Mahamood Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)288; [1997]228ITR121(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. TCMP No. 693 of 1996 is filed by the assessee under s. 151 of the CPC for condoning the delay of 77 days in filing the restoration petition, TCMP No. 692 of 1996. 2. TCMP No. 692 of 1996 is also filed under s. 151 of the CPC to set aside the order of dismissal in TC No. 1117 of 1984, dt. 8th August, 1996, and restore the same for re-hearing. 3. TC No. 1117 of 1984 [CIT vs. K. T. M. S. Mahmood was disposed of on 8th August, 1996. Inasmuch as the counsel for the assessee/respondent was not present on the date of hearing, the reference was heard and answered, with the assistance of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department and also after perusing the records carefully. In the result, the question referred was answered in the negative and in favour of the Department only to the extent of the addition of Rs. 4,28,713. It is thereafter the abovesaid two TCMPs. were filed before this Court under s. 151 CPC to condone the delay of 77 days in filing ...
Salem Shevapet Silver and Katcha Exchange Brokers Association Vs. Supd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT292(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner - Salem Shevapet Silver & Katcha Exchange Brokers Association, in this writ petition, has sought for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to search any place of business of the members of the petitioner association for seizing any Silver Bullions without strictly adhering to norms prescribed in the circular of the third respondent dated 11-6-1990, and pass such other or further orders as deemed proper. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated thus :- 'For the petitioners averment in para 8, it is submitted that the communication of the Ministry clearly provides that even though the silver bullions had been notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, it was made to obviate the difficulties arising from casting burden under Section 108 on the person from whom the silver bullion are seized is ill founded and fanciful. The first re...
The Special Tashildar (L.A.), Mepz Vs. K. Jayaraman and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC1
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. The writ appeals are preferred against the orders dated 21.04.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 3968, 6175, 6180 and 6181 of 1993, 3967, 3969, 6173 and 6174 of 1993, 6601, 6600, 6590, 8160 and 6587 of 1993, 6602, 9152, 7032 of 1993 and 1791 of 1994, 9153, 6588, 6589 and 6182 of 1993, issuing writs in the nature of mandamus to the Collector to determine the compensation payable to the respective writ petitioners, in accordance with Section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order either by the Government Pleader or the petitioners. Hence, the State Government has come up in appeals.2. The writ petitioners have filed applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determining the compensation by the Collector of the District on the ground that in respect of the lands acquired under the very same Notification there is enhancement of compensatio...
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Mepz Vs. K. Jayaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ408
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The writ appeals are preferred against the orders dated 21.4.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 3698,6175,6180 and 6181 of 1993,3967,3969,6173 and 6174 of 1993, 6601,6600,6590,8160 and 6587 of 1993,6602,9152, 7032 of 1993 and 1791 of 1994,9153,6588,6589 and 6182 of 1993, issuing writs in the nature of mandamus to the Collector to determine the compensation payable to the respective writ petitioners, in accordance with Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order either by the Government Pleader or the petitioners. Hence, the State Government has come up in appeals.2. The writ petitioners have filed applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determining the compensation by the Collector of the District on the ground that in respect of the lands acquired under the very same Notification, there is enhancement compensation made in the reference m...
Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Represented by Its Trustee V.R. Sampath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ248
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been posted before us on the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India dated 11.10.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 968 of 1980, since reported in Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple v. K. Ramachandra : 1995(6)SCALE25 , whereunder while setting aside the earlier order of dismissal of this appeal on the ground of limitation, the Supreme Court has remitted the matter to this Court for redeciding the matter on its own merits.2. The appellant in the above Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) is the Inamdar Temple, viz., Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Anjur Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District presently in Periyar District. The appeal has been filed against the orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode dated 22.2.1971 in C.M.A. No. 729 of 1969, wher...
Dr. M. Somasundaram Vs. the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ16
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated 16.8.1996 and direct the respondents to permit in petitioner to write the examination leading to the D.M. Cardiology Degree in September, 1996. Before going into the merits of the case, it has to be mentioned that by an interim order dated 30.8.1996, I permitted the petitioner to write the examination and directed that the results shall not be published till the disposal of the writ petition.2. The petitioner had obtained M.B.B.S. Degree and also the Post Graduate Degree of M.D. (General Medicines). In October, 1989, he was selected for admission to the higher speciality course in D.M. (Cardiology) at the Madras Medical College. The admission was for the academic year 1989-90. At the time of admission, the petitioner was governed by Regulations of the Madras University which did not restrict the number of attempts for passing D.M. (Cardiology) e...
D.B. Madan and Company Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT282(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner is engaged in the business of steamer agency. In the course of its business, one of its vessels called at the Port of Madras in August, 1981 with about 12,300 bales of rubber and paper and 500 pallets for discharge at Madras. The vessel arrived at Madras on 10th August, 1981. The import tally sheet duly signed by the trustees of the Madras Port Trust showed that 12,324 bundles and bales and 501 pallets were discharged at the Madras Port. The cargo manifested for discharge at Madras about 12,300 bundles and bales and 500 pallets. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in fact there were 24 excess bales discharged and one excess pallet discharged at the Madras Port. However, in the out turn statement dated 3-11-1981, the Madras Port Trust showed that only 783 bales as against 900 bales were delivered to the consignees under Line No. 41 of the Statement. A supplementary out turn statement dated 22-6-1982 was issued by the Port Trust declaring that 117 bales were short ...
N.M. Somasundaram Vs. the Director General of Police, Office of the Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)IMLJ486
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated November 9, 1995 passed by the learned single judge, dismissing W.P. No. 8975 of 1985, in which the petitioner/appellant had sought for quashing of the proceedings before the 1st Respondent (Director General of Police, Madras) starting from the charge memo P.R. 210 of 1984 dated October 5, 1984 and ending with the order of suspension in R.C. No. 750/Con.I(5)/84 dated December 28, 1984 and further to direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, pension, gratuity and general provident fund due to him immediately and any such other orders as may be deemed fit. 2. The petitioner was Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam Circle and was working as Security Officer to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal. He was served with the memo of charges for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. Thus, he was charged for corruption. The said charge was passed on October 5, 1984. It was also served upon th...
N.M. Somasundaram Vs. the Director-general of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ486
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 9th November, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W P. No. 8975 of 1985, in which the petitioner/appellant had sought for quashing of the proceedings before the 1st respondent (Director General of Police, Madras) stating from the charge memo P.R. No. 210 of 1984, dated 5.10.1984 and ending with the order of suspension in Rc. No. 750/Con.I (5)/84 dated 28.12.1984 and further to direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, pension, gratuity and general provident fund due to him immediately and any such other orders as may be deemed fit.2. The petitioner was Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam Circle and was working as Security Officer to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal. He was served with the memo of charges for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. Thus, he was charged for corruption. The said charge was passed on 5.10.1984. It was also served upon the petitioner/ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »