Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
A. Abdullah Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4378
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is against the concurrent orders of the second respondent and the first appellate authority, viz., the first respondent, levying penalty of Rs. 3,000 under section 50 of the Act for the contravention under section 9(1)(b) of the Act and ordering confiscation under section 63 of the Act, of the Indian currency of Rs. 60,000 seized from the appellant on the personal search made on him by the second respondent's officers in a lodge on January 24, 1985. Apart from the abovesaid Indian currency recovered at the same time, Singapore $ 50, Japan Yen 100 and Ceylon currency 200 were also recovered from his possession. A statement dated January 24, 1985, was also recorded soon after the said recovery. In that statement, the appellant admitted that the said amount of Rs. 60,000 was received by him from a person resident in India under instruction...
Tag this Judgment!Kosal and Others Vs. the State and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3800
Janarthanam, J.1. In respect of a transaction that took place on 1-5-1986 at about 6.30 a.m., at the coconut tope situate at Thirumoolanagar, belonging to one Thyagarajan, one Dhasan was done to death, giving rise to the registration of a case in Crime No. 77/86 on the file of Anjugramam Police Station for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 302 read with S. 109, IPC and culminating, on investigation, in the filing of a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. against the following eight accused, namely, Kosal (accused 1), Mannar alias Rajamannar (accused 2), Durai alias Rajagopal (accused 3), Thiraviyam (accused 4), Kannan (accused 5), Bhaskar (accused 6), Ayyakutti alias Kurus Mariyan (accused 7) and Thomas (accused 8) before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil (Taluk) for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149, IPC. 2. The final report so filed had been taken as PRC No. 24 of 1986, as against the adult accused (accused 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugham Vs. Inspector of Police, Marina Police Station, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3702
1. This appellant stands convicted by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in sessions Judge No. 72 of 1988 for the offence under section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for having caused the death of his wife by name Ambika. 13 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, of whom P.W. 1 is the eye witness and PW 2 had partly witnessed the occurrence. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :- The appellant - accused married the deceased Ambika about 14 years prior to the occurrence. The accused was unfaithful to her as she was having illicit intimacy with one Kumaresan from three years prior to the occurrence. Though this couple is having four children and the appellant also advised his wife-deceased to mend her ways she did not yield and six months prior to the date of occurrence, she deserted the appellant and joined the said Kumaresan her paramour. 3. On 14-1-1986 at 12.00 Noon PW 2, who is residing in Do...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Krishna Water Supply Project V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC599
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. Respondents arc served and they are represented through a counsel. As the matter is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.2.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1454 of 1995. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and issued directions in the following terms:'All the petitioners in this writ petition seek a direction to the respondent to consider their representations, dated 31.3.1994 filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the petitioners is that in LAOP. No. 98 of 1988 the compensation granted to the land owners have been enhanced and the petitioners seek a modification of the award taking note of the decree in LAOP. No. 98 of 1988. On notice learned Government Advocate says that the petitioners did not file a copy of the decree in LAOP. No. 98 of 1988. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition di...
Tag this Judgment!K. Panchavarnammal (Died) and ors. Vs. E. Saraswathiammal and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC98; (1996)IIMLJ252
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 431 of 1981, on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, originally filed the revision petition. Later, she died and her legal representatives have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 7, in this Revision.2. Respondents herein filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent, that the building is required by the landlords bona fide for own use and occupation, and on the further ground that the tenant was making use of the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out.3. Tenant, in her counter, denied that she has committed default in paying the rent. She also disputed the claim of the landlords regarding the requirement of the premises for their own occupation. She said that the claim is only a pretext for eviction. In so far as the allegation that the building is used for a different purpose, her contention was that herself and her husband and ...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Appliances and Control Equipment Rep. by Its Partner Thiru Varada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC567
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2750 of 1990 is by the tenant and the other Revision is by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (12th June, Court of Small Causes) at Madras.2. The landlord filed the present petition for fixation of fair rent of the Scheduled premiss. The agreed rent is Rs. 4,500/- and the tenancy began on 10.5.1981. According to the landlord, the rent that is now being paid by the tenant is not in accordance with the prevailing rate. According to him atleast the fair rent has to be fixed at Rs. 13,780/- taking into consideration the market value of the land, amenities, cost of construction, etc.3. Tenant contended that there is no necessity for fixation of fair rent, and the present rent is reasonable, and that has to be fixed as fair rent.4. The Rent Controller, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the fair rent will be at Rs. 6,810/-. Both the landlord and tenant filed Appeals before the Appellate Authority ...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Petrol Traders Association Limited, Represented by Hono ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ205
Srinivasan, J.1. In this writ petition, the prayer is for declaration that the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order, 1977 published in G.O.Ms. No. 218 (Food), dated 20.8.1977, as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 218, dated 1.3.1988, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is unconstitutional, ultra vires, illegal and invalid. Though the prayer is wide enough to challenge the validity of the entirety of the Order of 1977, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in this writ petition he will confine his claim to the validity of the amendment brought in by G.O.Ms. No. 218, dated 1.3.1988. By the said amendment, the original order was made applicable to petrol and diesel and certain provisions were included with regard to kerosene, petrol and diesel.2. The State Government was authorised by G.S.R. No. 316-E, dated 20.6.1972 issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to make orders to provide for m...
Tag this Judgment!Ponds Exports Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Also Dy. Cit V. Ponds Expor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)107
ORDERM. M. CHERIAN, A. M. :As common grounds are involved in these appeals filed in the case of M/s Ponds Exports Ltd. for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85, they are consolidated in a common order.2. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and it derives income from the manufacture of cosmetics.Asst. yr. 1983-84 :3. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1983-84, the assessee company started a manufacturing unit at Kandla in respect of which it claimed under s. 10A of the IT Act, exemption on the profits. In the P&L; a/c for the year ending 31st March, 1983 a sum of Rs. 5,51,718 was credited as interest on bank deposits. The assessees claim for exemption on the interest income was not allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) who brought to tax the amount as income under the head other sources. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) held that interest on the bank deposits was assessable as income from business under s. 28(1) of the IT Act, in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S. Eapen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR45(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J. 1. In tax case petitions, the Department requested this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two common questions, for the opinion of this court, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the reopening of the assessments for the years 1972-73 to 1974-75 was not justified and therefore was bad in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the value of the lands as adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 3. The assessee owned movable and immovable properties. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the value of the non-agricultural lands at Rs. 2,000 per cent. Later, he came to know that the assessee had gifted 23 cents of the land to a church in June, 1975, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas K.R. and ors. and Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2566]; (1998)IIILLJ1116Mad
Srinivasan, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 11348 of 1988 is by 167persons for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,and the second respondent, Ennore Thermal Power Station, to regularise the services of the petitioners and absorb them in their services and pay them equal wages to that of the wages payable to a permanent security watchman of the respondent Board from the date of recruitment, or issue such other appropriate orders. 2. In short, the claim of the petitioners is that they are direct workmen of the first and second respondents for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, the definite case of the respondents is that the petitioners are not direct employees and they are employees only under the contractor who is the third respondent, viz., Hindustan Security Detective Services. It was also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the contract has been changed and the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »