Chennai Court July 1996 Judgments
The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Consumer Co-operative Federation Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ412
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 10.7.1987 in P.S.A. No. 18 of 1987.2. The Management has filed this writ petition. The second respondent was an employee working as a Junior Assistant in the petitioner concern at Tiruchirapalli. He was kept under suspension from 8.5.1985. After the receipt of the explanation form the second respondent, an enquiry was conducted on 27.7.1985. The second respondent took adjournments on several occasions. The enquiry was adjourned to 31.8.1985. In the mean time, the second respondent filed O.S. No. 1682 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli and obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A. No. 1284 of 1985 on 21.10.1985 restraining the petitioner from conducting the domestic enquiry. After obtaining an order of injunction the second respondent filed P.S.A. No. 18 of 1987 claiming the subsistence allowance for the period from 22.4.1986 to 30.4.1987. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Nachal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2011
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by Mrs. Nachal the petitioner herein, against the order dated 9-1-1995 passed in C.C. No. 230 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, allowing the petition filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to implead the petitioner as one of the accused.2. The case in brief is as follows :- One Seethai Aachi, the complainant has given her daughter in marriage at Amaravathi Pudur. She has friendly acquaintence with one Mrs. Nachal the petitioner who is a resident of the same village. On her request, the complainant Seethai Aachi gave a loan amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner. On 18-8-1990, at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant Seethai Aachi as requested by the petitioner, went to the petitioner's house and received back the loan amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Then the petitioner, accompanied the said Seethai Aachi till her residence and came back to her house. At that point of time, some persons suddenly appeare...
Tag this Judgment!Chelladurai Vs. Maniammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC493
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a revision preferred by the husband Chelladurai, against the order dated 11.11.1992 in Cri. R.C. No. 8 of 1991, on the file of the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- p.m. to the wife and Rs. 100/- p.m. to the minor son, by setting aside the order made in M.C. No. 191 of 1983 on 31.5.1991 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mayiladuthurai, dismissing the maintenance petition filed by the wife Maniammal.2. The facts of the case are as follows :The marriage between the petitioner/husband Chelladurai and the 1st respondent herein/wife Maniammal, was solemnised under Hindu rites in the year 1970. In 1980, the 2nd respondent, Sundararasan was born to them. Therefore, the husband/petitioner did not maintain the wife and child properly and gave troubles to them. Ultimately, both wife and child were driven out of the house. On 2.6.1983, the petitioner/husband married one Kalaichelvi as his second wife. The yearly income for the husban...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alamelu Ammal Vs. Haribabu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC238
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 281 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the appellant in the above appeal. He filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,083 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- On 9.2.76 the defendant on receipt of Rs. 6,000 executed a promisory note in favour of the plaintiff payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Since the defendant is an agriculturist, interest is claimed only at 6 per cent. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount, hence filed the present suit.3. The defendant filed a written statement wherein he has admitted the execution of the suit promissory note, but denied the receipt of consideration. He contended that for various sums borrowed a pronote was executed for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on 2.2.1975 for which he paid interest at 12 per cent and also portion of the principal amount. The plaintiff insisted on a fre...
Tag this Judgment!RobIn Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC261
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition is for a writ of certionari to quash the order of the third respondent dated 21.2.1982 cancelling the plot allotted to the petitioner at 4C(SP) Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Madras.2. The Managing Director of the petitioner company earlier filed an application before the first respondent for the allotment in its favour of a plot of an extent of 2.50 acres at Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Madras for industrial purposes. The first respondent by a letter dated 6.1.1972 allotted the plot in plot No. 40(SP) Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Madras to the Managing Director of the petitioner company for setting up a factory to manufacture the following articles, viz., flavouring essences, food colours, ancillaries spice and oleoresins, aromatic chemicals and synthetic Essential Gels. The first respondent determined the cost of the plot at Rs. 20,000 per acre, and the petitioner was requested to make payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000 being 50 per cent of...
Tag this Judgment!J. Kuppuswami Mudali and ors. Vs. Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC256; (1997)IMLJ45
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The defendants is O.S.No. 472 of 1979 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Tiruttani are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent, Plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration and for permanent injunction or in the alternative recovery of possession of the plaintiff's property.2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are briefly narrated hereunder: One Govinda Mudali was the absolute owner of the suit property. He settled the suit property in favour of one Papammal, the vendor of the plaintiff under the registered settlement deed dated 14.5.1970, and she has also accepted the same. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Pappammal under a registered sale deed 2.4.1979 for Rs. 3,000. Since the vendor of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, sold the same to the plaintiff, they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession also. The defendants have no right, titl...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Karpagambal Mills Limited Represented by Its Managing Director, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ549
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Notification Nos.214/Customs/80 dated 1.11.1980, No. 215/Customs/80, dated 1.11.1980 and No. 171/80 C.E., dated 1.11.1980 in so far as they affect the petitioner and further to direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 86,993.38 collected from the petitioner as customs duty and to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper, in the matter.2. By the Notification dated 1.11.1980, bearing No. 214-Customs/80, issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the earlier notifications bearing No. 6 Customs, dated 5.1.1979 and No. 8-Customs dated 5.1.1979 were rescinded. Whereas under Notification No. 215-Customs/80 dated 1.11.1980, issued under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Central Government exempted viscose staple fibre and viscose tow, falling within Chapter 56 of the First Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Police, Madras and Another Vs. R. Kothandapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1812; 1996(2)CTC436
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-3-1994 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P. 3314 of 1994 and quashing the order dated 8-6-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, in proceedings RC No. K2/685/192721/1992, dated 8-6-1993, confiscating the vehicle - auto bearing registration number TSL 9003, under S. 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or in lieu of confiscation, to pay Rs. 22,000/- being the market value of the auto, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that unless the prosecution is taken out under S. 14A of the Act, confiscation proceedings cannot be taken out. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned single Judge has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in D. Shanthalakshmi v. State reported in : AIR1983Mad232 . 3. Therefore, the question for consideration is as to whether the power under S. 14(4) of the Act regar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayyanarappan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: [1999]236ITR454(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 41(2)2. The assessee is a firm. One of the partners died on 28th May, 1976 and immediately thereafter the firm was reconstituted. In the previous year ended 31st March, 1976 the assessee had transferred five assets in favour of four partners and a stranger. In computing the profits under s. 41(2) of the Act, the ITO took into account the depreciation deducted in the assessment made on the firm prior to the reconstitution also, in the view that the death of the partner led only to a change in the constitution and there was no succession of one firm by another. On appeal, the AAC held that, in computing the profits under s. 41(2) of the Act, only the deductions granted to the assessee firm could be taken into account and not deductions granted to the dissolved firm. On further appeal a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: [1999]239ITR815(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of r. 2A of IT Rules, 1962, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(13A) of the IT Act, in respect of the house rent allowance received by him?' 2. The point for consideration is that having regard to the provisions of r. 2A of the IT Rules, 1962, the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(13A) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the house rent allowance received by the assessee. 3. The assessee is a Government servant and a member of the Indian Administrative Service. During the relevant period, he was functioning as the chairman of the State Planning Commission, Madras. H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »