Chennai Court March 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.
Rengasami Angurar and Others Vs. Nacharammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad436
1. The legal representatives of the defendant are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 311 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pudukkottai for partition and separate possession. The averments in the plaint are as follows :-- The plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Lakshaman Angurar. Her grandfather Valathan died long ago leaving his two sons namely Ramasami Angurar and Lakhshmana Angurar. The defendant is the son of Ramasami Angurar. After the death of Valathan Angurar his properties were inherited by Ramasami Angurar and Lakshmana Angurar and were enjoyed by them jointly. Ramasami Angurar predeceased Lakshmana Angurar. Lakshmana Angurar left behind his wife Kasi Ammal who became entitled to the properties representing the undivided share of Lakshmana Angurar. Kasi Ammal died in or about 1969 leaving the plaintiff only. After the death of Lakshmana Angurar, the defendant and Kasim Ammal enjoyed the properties jointly....
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Alagusundaram Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas68(Mad); [1997(75)FLR404]
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the two inspections made by the prosecuting officer on April 29, 1986, and May 30, 1986. The appellant and respondents herein are the respective complainant and accused in S.T.C. Nos. 335 and 336 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Madurai. As the respondents have not remitted the employees' contribution within the stipulated time, the above two summary trial cases have been filed against them. S.T.C. No. 335 of 1986 relates to the period from January, 1986, to March, 1986, and the contribution of employees as well as the company being Rs. 65,309.20 and Rs. 1,45,564.10, respectively. S.T.C. No. 336 of 1986 relates to the month of April, 1986, and the contribution of the employees and the company being Rs. 20,708.80 and Rs. 45,977.20, respectively. Both the cases ended in acquittal in respect of the charge under section 85A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, by two different judgments dated De...
S. Krishnamurthy Vs. A.R. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas212(Mad); 1996CriLJ3552
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, Krishnamurthy, against the judgment dated March 30, 1992, C.A. No. 36 of 1991 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, by his judgment dated February 22, 1991, in C.C. No. 288 of 1989 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance. He filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, who in turn acquitted the accused of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but convicted him for the offences under section 138 of the Act and sent...
Bakkiaraj and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Sathur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ429
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment in S.C. No. 113 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanad at Madurai convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years. The appellants were originally tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanad at Madurai, on the allegation that on 11-3-1988 at about 4.45 p.m. both the appellants pushed the deceased Lakshmana Nadar from the steps of the staircase in the house, due to which the deceased Lakshmana Nadar fell on the stepping stone 'Padikkal'), the deceased with the result the deceased Lakshmana Nadar died on 12-3-1988 at about 8.50 a.m. at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. Therefore, they were liable to be tried under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 2. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined, exhibits P. 1 to 15 were...
Harichandran Vs. the State, Rep. by the S.i. of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ41
ORDER1. This revision has been directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4685/1992 in C.C. No. 382 of 1992, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai. 2. The Petitioner Harichandran, son of Joseph is the accused in CC No. 382 of 1992, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai on the charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police, Kaliakkavilai Police Station, Kanyakumari district, for the offences under Section 427 and 379 I.P.C. and Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 3. Copies of documents were furnished to the petitioner/accused. Thereafter an application has been filed by the petitioner in CC No. 382 of 1992, for discharge, contending that he is the absolute owner of the Six acres of patta land in S. Nos. 507/1, 507/2, and 507/3 in Vilsvancode village, Edapilankad, Madichal, Kanyakumari District, and that he is an agricuturist, doing agricultural work and of the six acres only three acres are cultivable and the rest of the ar...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR81(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1979-80 :- Asst. yr. 1975-76 '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of s. 2(18)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested (ii) Whether the Tribunal's view that since the assessee is a public company under s. 43A of the Companies Act 1956 the assessee should be treated as a company in which the public are substantially interested under s. 2(18)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 is sustainable in law (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under s. 35B should be allowed at 1-1/2 times and not at 1-1/3 times as allowed by the ITO ?' Asst. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Polly Container Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR526(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 1st November, 1982, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 88,127 being the rent payable to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation. Ltd. in respect of the earlier years is an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1976-77 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the rent of Rs. 88,127 was ascertained and became payable only during the year ended 30th September, 1975 is sustainable in law especially when the demand was raised on 20th January, 1976 consequent to the Government's order dt. 26th August, 1975 ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm doing business in manufacture of containers. It was a sub-allottee of a shed ...
income Tax Officer Vs. T.V. Rajamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR293(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. By consent of parties, all these four appeals have been taken up together for final disposal, as the issue involved in all these appeals and the arguments advanced are one and the same. 2. All these appeals have been preferred by the ITO, Circle I(1), Salem, against the judgments, dt. 10th July, 1986, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II). Egmore, Madras 8, acquitting T. V. Rajamanickam (the accused in EOCC Nos. 1343, 1344 of 1983 and 812 of 1984), and R. Dhanabagyam (accused in EOCC No. 1361 of 1983), in respect of the charges under ss. 193, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and ss. 277 and 276C(1) of the IT Act. Originally in EOCC No. 1344 of 1983, T. V. Rajamanickam was tried along with another accused, M. Srinivasan, the 2nd respondent in CA No. 23 of 1987, herein, who is reported to be dead, while the batch of appeals pending against him and the same in C.A. Nos. 24 etc., of 1987 were dismissed by this Court b...
Rajapandian Vs. Puspavalli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC435
Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner Rajapandian is the respondent in M.C. No. 35 of 1987 of the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, which was filed by his wife Puspavalli, the 1st respondent herein claiming maintenance ofRs.300/- for herself and Rs.200/-permonth for her minor daughter Rajeswari, is the same was dismissed by learned Trial Magistrate, the wife filed a revision before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in Cri. R.C. No. 51 of 1991, which was ultimately allowed by Order dated 12.1.1993. This order is under challenge in this Court by way of revision, by the petitioner/husband.2. The short facts for the disposal of the revision could be summarised as follows:The marriage between the petitioner Rajapandian and the 1st respondent Pushpavalli was held on 28.6.1985 as per Hindu customary rites. Thereafter they lived together for sometime. The petitioner/husband made an accusation, that the 1st respondent wife had an illicit intimacy with his brother-in-law, so s...
Shaana Thiruchelvam Vs. K.S. Varkey and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ558
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The 3rd respondent in I.P. No. 40 of 1990 is the appellant in this appeal. We will refer to the parties excepting the appellant, as per their ranks in the Insolvency Petition itself for convenience. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5.8.1991 in I.P. No.40of 1990 adjudicating the respondents therein including the appellant herein as insolvents.2. The Insolvency Petition was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Sections 9 and 10 to 12 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The 1st respondent in the Insolvency Petition is a partnership firm known as Fellowship Trading Corporation. The 2nd respondent is the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent is the other partner. The case of the petitioners in the Insolvency Petition was that the firm collected huge amounts by way of deposits, etc., from the public and the 2nd respondent in the Insolvency Petition as managing partner deliberately diverted the funds with fraudu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »