Chennai Court February 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.
Thuthukudi Thanpadu Uppu Ettrumathi Vivaparigal Sangam, TuticorIn and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad459; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)158
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. These two writ Appeals arise out of writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 30565 and 30566 of 1994 which along with writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 20443, 21383 21485 of 1994 and 488 of 1995 were dealt with by a common order by learned Judge and all the writ petitions were dismissed on 10-10-1995. All these writ petitions challenge the validity of the Notification No. VI(2)/206/94 dated : 29-8-1994 issued by the second respondent under Clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Central Act 37 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). An amendment was issued to this notification in the Amendment Notification No. VI(2) 13(a)/95 dated: 12-1-1995, by limiting the period of the ban on sale of edible common salt for the period upto 31-12-1999. Learned Judge has set out the pleadings elaborately as well as the arguments advanced before him and has considered the case in all the aspects and from all the angles projeted by the petitioners and found that there was ab...
Ammasi Vs. State Represented by Sub-inspector of Police, Omalur and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1891
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner Ammasi, who is the first informant in this case against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur in C.C. No. 296 of 1992 seeking to set aside the same acquitting the respondents 2 to 8 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 6 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27-3-1992 at Omalur Agraharam the respondents 2 to 8 conducted a child marriage between one Palaniswami of 19 years and Kumuda aged about 17 years and thereby they committed offences as stated in para 1 above. 3. On the side of the prosecution PWs-1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-5 were marked. PW-1 Ammasi, the petitioner belonged to Palpakki village. One Palaniswami is his son. He was only 19 years old at the time of the alleged marriage PW-1 knows all the accused. On 5-3-1992 PW-1's son Palaniswami was kidnapped by all the accused. On knowing this the petitione...
John Eugene Brennan (irish National-tourist) Vs. State, by the Inspect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC426; 1996(56)ECC116
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, rendered by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai for N.D.P.S. Cases in C.C. No. 292 of 1994 on 3.10.1994.2. Mr. John Eugene Brennan, an Irish National, who had come over to India as tourist under the valid travel documents, was found standing near the Bus Stand at Kodaikanal Town at about 18.00 hours on 31.5.1994 and on seeing the Police party led by the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal, he had a sudden swerve and attempted to board the nearby parked transport bus, however, stumbled down and sustained injury on his leg. He was over powered by the Inspector of Police and his party. The belongings of the appellant were searched and on doing...
Ar. P. Murugesan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC374
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to Notification No. Ka.Po/VV/V3/111303/95 dated 3.1.1996 and quash the same with respect to condition No. 2. and directing the respondents to consider the tender of the petitioner.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the condition No. 2 of the impugned re-tender notification dated 3.1.1996 is bad and arbitrary in law. Although the Government Order authorities the petitioner to undertake the work of the value of Rs. 25,00,000/- on contract, by the impugned re-tender notice, opportunity is denied to the petitioner with mala-fide intention.4. When the learned counsel for the petitioner complained that the tender schedule forms arc not issued, I directed the Government Advocate to take notice, and today on ins...
Chandanmal Mootha Vs. Hajee Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ643
S.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. Nos. 2064 and 2207 of 1988 arise from R.C.O.P. No. 5510 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 2080 of 1988 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 5512 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 3225 of 1988 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 5511 of 1982.2. In all the three eviction petitions filed by the landlords, there was a common ground for eviction, namely, bona fide requirement of the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. In R.C.O.P. No. 5510 of 1982, there was an additional ground, namely, that the first respondent therein had unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent therein.3. All these three eviction petitions were jointly tried, and eviction was ordered in all the petitions. The ground of sub-letting was also found in favour of the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 5510 of 1982.4. Appeals were filed by the tenants as well as the subtenant before Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) and they were dismissed. Hence, the revisions. C.R.P. No. 2064 of 1988 is by th...
S.P. Sarangapani Vs. the Assistance Director, Enforcement Directorate, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4120
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') is against the concurrent order of the 2nd respondent-Appellate Board; confirming the three different penalties levied on the confiscation made by the 1st respondent-Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the old Act'). The appellant was found guilty by the said Authorities below on three different charges. One is under Section 5(1)(c) of the old Act read with Section 23-B of the said Act, which provides that no person in India, save in accordance with any exemption granted by the Reserve Bank, shall 'make any payment to or for the credit of any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India'. Under this charge, the payment in question was not actually made, but was only attempted to be made and that is why the charge is under the abovesaid provision read with Section 23-B of the old Act, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalkulam Vilavancode Taluk Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR725(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court in its order dated February 23, 1981, in T.C.P. No. 455 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question for the Opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 4,51,613 to the District Welfare Fund by the assessee (society) should be deducted from its total income ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction with regard to payment made to the District Welfare Fund by the assessee from its total income. 3. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T.C. No. 695 of 1982 in the case of CIT v. Kanyakumari District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Nagercoil, wherein by a judgment dated November 30, 1994, this court held that the assessee is entitled to deduction with regard to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivananda Colour Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)32; [1997]223ITR180(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. In compliance with the order of this court dated October 27, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of new machinery acquired and leased out by the assessee to a sister concern (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was exploiting the newly purchased machinery only as commercial assets and the income derived under the lease did not, therefore, cease to be part of the income from business ?' 2. The assessee was a firm having a factory for bleaching and dyeing. In the previous year ended October 20, 1977, corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee purchased c...
M. Gopal Mudaliar (Died) and Eight ors. Vs. Thangammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC213
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the 1st defendant, who was unsuccessful throughout. The suit O.S.No.269 of 1976 has been filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is the widow of one Duraisamy Mudaliar, for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for vacant possession of the same. The plaintiff claims that the suit properties originally belonged to her husband Duraisamy Mudaliar, have been allotted to his share in the family partition deed dated 9.12.1954, marked as Ex.A.1; that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same eversince the partition; that the plaintiff and her husband having sold the same for themselves and on behalf of their minor children in favour of the 2nd defendant by name Panchakshara Mudaliar, under a sale deed dated 21.3.1959, marked as Ex.A.2 and subsequently the 2nd defendant along with his wife and minor children, in their turn, sold the same in favour of the plaintiff, under a sale deed dated 12.9.1973, mar...
Janakiammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ110
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these second appeals are by plaintiff in O.S. No.39 of 1979 and O.S. No. 143 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The suits were filed by the respective plaintiff therein for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs.2. Schedule items in both the suits were once upon a time Zamindari Estate, and subsequently they were alleged to have been vested with the Government. Both the plaintiffs claim title on the basis of document executed by Zamindar. But, the Government, after abolition of Zamindari system, as per Madras Estates Abolition Act, declared the lands in question as poramboke lands, and this necessitated the filing of the suits.3. In defence in both the suits defendant- Government took a stand that the suits are not maintainable, and that civil court has no jurisdiction, once the Authorities under the Act have classified the lands in question as 'Natham poramboke'. The identity of the property claimed...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »