Chennai Court June 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.
Dr. N. Marichamy Vs. K. Subburaj and Eleven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ1085; 1997(1)CTC354
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. C.R.P1.Nos. 64 to 68 are directed against the order passed in I.A.Nos. 130 to 134 of 1987 in M.CO.P.Nos.26 to 30 of 1987. Respondents 1 to 8 herein are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P. Nos.26 to 30 of 1987, filed for compensation. Respondents 11 and 12 are the proposed parties. 10th respondent is the Insurance Company. Petitioner in the said I. As. is one Dr.N.Marichamy, who is the 2nd respondent in the main H.C.O.Ps. Respondents 1 to 8 are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P.s who claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 against the 2nd respondent in the M.C.O.Ps. on account of the death caused to one Krishnamurthy Gounder in a motor vehicle accident. In the said main petition for compensation petitioners have alleged that Dr.N. Marichamy was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Marichamy contested the claim and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to him, he sold the vehicle in question on 17.8.1985 for a cash consideration of Rs. 47...
Velu Alias Chinna Veerakumaran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ433
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 27 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, the appellant was charged and tried for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life on the allegation that on 7-6-1986 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellant Velu caused death of his concubine Mennakashi at her house by cutting on her left hand, shoulder and head by means of an Aruval M.O. 10. 2. To substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20 and marked M.Os. 1 to 12. 3. The prosecution case needs narration. The deceased is the sister's daughter of P.W. 1 and P.W. 1's brother Ramaswamy was married to the deceased. Seven years back the said Ramasamy died, Through Ramasamy the deceased had got three children. One of them is P.W. 2. Gurusamy aged about 12 years. After the death of the said Ramasamy the deceased used to go for cooly work in the Rice Mill at Sankarankovil. In the same Mill the appel...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivan Soap Factory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)85; [1997]227ITR126(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.269H(1)269G269CUnion of India 269C(2)(b)269C269F(6)269C(2)(a)269C(2)(a)IAC 269C269C(2)(a)Mathew M. Thomas 269C269CRattan Chand Sood Export India Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Avadiappa Pathar CIT 269D269D269C(2)(a)269D269D269C(2)(a)Santosh 2(41)4Union of India Vimlaben 269D269D4947Competent Authority 269C269DUnion of India 269C269C269D...
T.S. Sankaranarayanan Vs. the High Court of Judicature
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1159Mad
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief. To issue a writ of certiorari,calling for the records connected with the impugned order in ROC No. 183/94/Con. B2 dated November 30, 1994 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.2. This is a second round of litigation in this connection. The petitioner joined the State Judicial Service as District Munsif and then promoted as subordinate Judge and as District Judge, Grade II. In due course, he had been promoted as District Judge, Grade I. The Petitioner has so far put in 25 years of service.3. While so, the petitioner was served with a confidential Official Memorandum in ROC No. 77/90/Con. B2 dated February 18, 1991 issued by the Hon'ble Enquiring Judges, Hon'ble me. Justice M. Srinivasan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Abdul Hadi, directing him to showcause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules....
Rt. Rev. R.T. Baskaran, Bishop of Vellore and anr. Vs. Aruldoss and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC299
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred against order of ad-interim injunction dated 22.4.1992 passed by the District Munsif, Villupuram, on I.A. No. 803 of 1992 filed in O.S. No. 487 of 1992.2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case. This is a revision petition, which is filed against the ex parte order of temporary injunction without filing the objections to it and seeking an order from the trial Court which has granted the order of temporary injunction. It is true, while granting the order of ad-interim injunction, the Court has to bear in mind the provisions contained in Rules 1 and 3 of Order 39 of Civil Procedure Code. The Court can pass an order of ad-interim injunction only when it is satisfied that the object of granting the injunction will be defeated by the delay caused in directing the notice of the application to the opposite party before granting the injunction. The court has to...
P. Nagalakshmi and Others Vs. Dr. K. Premavathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ808
ORDER1. The challenge in this revision is against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. VII, Coimbatore made in Crl.M.P. No. 571 of 1995 in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 dated 2-5-1995, for its want of legality and propriety. 2. The petitioners herein numbering 5 along with others in all about 12 are facing the charges of bigamy punishable under Section 494 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the first petitioner married the second respondent, the husband of Dr. Premavathi, the first respondent herein, who was already married to the said person. It has been alleged further that the first respondent was a Doctor and the second respondent was an Engineer by profession and that in view of certain bickerings that erupted in connection with the demand of dowry their marital life became strained but however, during the said so journ, a female child was born to them and at the last, it was stated that the said first wife Dr. Premavathi with her ...
Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force and ors. Vs. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ597Mad
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Jolarpettai and three others are the appellants in the above writ appeal. They filed the above appeal against the order dated September 29, 1995 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.12043/85 quashing the order of dismissal of the respondent. A consequential direction to reinstate the respondent with all benefits was also given.2. The short facts are as follows:-The respondent was selected and appointed in the Railway Protection Force as a Rakshak by the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force by his communication dated December 27, 1962. The respondent has put in 20 years of service. The impugned order was passed removing the respondent from service for having consumed alcohol while on duty. The incident took place on December 10, 1982. On that day while functioning as Rakshak at the Arakonam Junction, the respondent was deputed for ticket checking duty at the Southern Railway Magis...
Rama Krishnan Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ642
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 192 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu. The suit was decreed ex parte on 23.4.1993. The second defendant in the suit, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. 1132 of 1994 to condone the delay of 198 days in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte order.2. The respondent has stated in the affidavit that she engaged a lawyer to defend the suit. He was getting time for filing the written statement. Meanwhile, the first defendant, died and the legal heirs were added as defendants. The suit was adjourned from time to time and ultimately the ex parte decree was passed on 23.4.1993, since no written statement was filed. The non-filing of the written statement in neither wilful nor wanton but due to the bona fide reasons. The respondent further stated in the affidavit that the petition to set aside the ex parte order could not be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U. Mohan Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)292; [1997]227ITR72(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to standard deduction of Rs. 4,500, under section 16(i) since the assessee was getting the salary income from the two employers ?' 2. The assessee is Mr. U. Mohan Rao who was an employee in the capacity of managing director in two companies, namely, Cutfast Abrasive Tools Pvt. Ltd., and Cutfast Bonded Abrasives Pvt. Ltd., receiving remuneration from each of the companies. He was provided with a car by Cutfast Abrasive Tools Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of his employment and in regard to his income by way of salary from this company, he claimed a standard deduction of Rs. 1,000. From the other ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Star Oil Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)29; [1997]228ITR26(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This reference arises out of the order dated November 27, 1980, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in ITA No. 602/Mds. of 1978-79 relating to the assessment year 1973-74. 2. The question referred to us for decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 70,600 levied for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 3. The Tribunal by the order referred to above has held that consequent to the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, on April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, he could not have passed an order of penalty on March 1, 1978. On this ground, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty. 4. In this case, we are on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »