Chennai Court January 1997 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.
A. Irudayasamy Vs. V. Perumal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ360
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 53 of 1984, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Ariyalur, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the appellant was open for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant. Ex. A-1 is the promissory note which says that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000 on 14.12.1978. It further says that the defendant shall repay the same on demand with interest at 12% per annum. It is dated 14.12.1978. On 14.12.1981, in part payment of the amount due, and acknowledging the liability, a sum of Rs. 100 was paid. When the amount was not paid in time, notice was issued under Ex. A-3, which was received by the defendant. But the defendant neither sent a reply nor settled the transaction. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the amount due on the promissory note. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted the execution of the promissory note. He said that the statement in the promissory note ...
K. Samikkannu Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary, Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: I(1997)ACC448
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondent-Corporation to pay adequate and fair compensation for the loss of the life of the petitioner's son.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent viz., Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited is in the mining operation with giant escavator at Second Mines Site. A brick-wall was discovered inside the mine and it was thought that it could be an ancient cave. After hearing the news, the public in the surrounding area were anxious to see the ancient cave. It is averred that there is no fencing or notification cautioning the people on the imminent danger for public. The people, unmindful of the extreme danger, were visiting the structure in large number. The petitioner's son S. Muthukumaran, aged about 13 years who was studying in VIII Standard at Neyveli Lignite Corpora...
K. Samikkannu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC104
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondent Corporation to pay adequate and fair compensation for the loss of the life of the petitioner's son.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent viz., Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited is in the mining operation with giant escalator at Second Mines Site. A brick-wall was discovered inside the mine and it was thought that it could be an ancient cave. After hearing the news, the public in the surrounding area were anxious to see the ancient cave. It is averred that there is no fencing or notification cautioning the people on the imminent danger for public. The people, unmindful of the extreme danger, were visiting the structure in large number. The petitioner's son S. Muthukumaran, aged about 13 years who was studying in VIII Standard at Neyveli Lignite Corpora...
Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Somasundarama Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT61(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above reference has been made at the instance of the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for our determination and opinion on the following question of law :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that on a harmonious interpretation of Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 and Section 11A and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the order of refund has become final at the hands of a quasi-judicial authority.'2. The respondent mills are engaged in the manufacture of non-cellulosic spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(E) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The said yarn manufactured is utilised in the same factory for manufacture of man-made fabrics, or in other words 'Captively Consumed' in the factory. The respondent filed a claim on 12-12-1980 for a sum of Rs. 5,184/- consequent upon the orders of the appellate Collect...
Muniappan and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2336
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The appellants are A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1985, on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a Fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo R.I. for two weeks, and to undergo imprisonment for life respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The crux of the indictment against the appellants is that on 24-2-1985 at about 11.00 p.m., the appellants trespassed into the arrack shop belonged to the deceased Subbiah Thevar, and assaulted with a broken bottle on his right hand and leg, and after pushing him down on the floor, by crumpling his head and strangulating his neck, caused the death of the deceased. 3. The brief facts are : (a) The scene village is Ramanathapuram, within Pollachi police jurisdiction. The deceased Subbiah Thevar, aged about 60 years was running an unlicens...
Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3286
Janarthanam, J. 1. Desirable it is to pen down a common order in all these actions, inasmuch as the point urged or canvassed for consideration is one and the same. 2. The alleged detenus in three actions, namely, H.C.P. Nos. 535, 659 and 713 of 1996, it is said are goondas. 3. The alleged detenus in the other cases, five actions, namely, H.C.P. Nos. 503, 623, 705, 837 and 843 of 1996, it is said, are bootleggers. 4. No doubt the detaining authorities, in all these actions, are different and the impugned orders of detention had been passed separately against the alleged individual detenus. 5. In all these actions, representations for and on behalf of the detenus had been made in the month of April, 1996 that is to say, much earlier to the holding of elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. 6. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly took place in two phases, namely, first on the 26th of April, 1996 and the second on the 2...
Bank of Madurai Ltd. by Its Branch Manager Vs. M. Sundara Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC326
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The plaintiff/decree holder is the Revision Petitioner, who failed to convince the lower court and get his application for the delay in representation condoned.2. The suit was for recovery of the money by the bank and the same was decreed on 12.7.1976. E.P.No. 238of 1978 was filed and was dismissed on 23.8.1978 for non-payment of batta. Again E.P. No. 480 of 1978 was filed and the same was dismissed on 18.8.80 again for non-prosecution and exactly on the last day of the expiry of twelve years, the present E.P. was filed on 12.7.1988. It appears, the E.P. was returned for rectification of some defects and the same was not properly complied with. According to the learned District Munsif, the defects remained unrectified and when finally the E.P. was represented, there was a delay of 57 days in representation at various stages and the only return appears to be that the decree copy was not enclosed, and therefore, the E.P. was dismissed. I am really shocked at ...
Geetha Shenova Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC761
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent culminating in his order No. RC. J2/68726/88 dated 19.5.1989 confirming the order ROC 2802/86B dated 30.9.1988 of the third respondent and quash the said impugned order No.RCJ2/68726/88 dated 19.5.1989 of the second respondent confirming the order of the third respondent and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's building in Plot No. 38 IV Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras-41 as a dwelling unit under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1960.2. In support of the said writ petition, one S.S. Rajasekar, Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner Mrs. Geetha Shenova has filed on affidavit.3. The petitioner owns a piece of land measuring about 3,700 Sq.Mts. in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Madras in Survey No. 210/2A-1A.27. This land was purchased in the year 1960 under a re...
M.P. Mariappa Nadar and Others Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad406
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. In all the above Writ Appeals us well as in Writ Petition No. 209 of 1997, the challenge of the petitioners/appellants is against the attempt of the respondents to allot certain liquor shops governed by the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail vending) Rules 1989, thereinafter called as 'the rules') to co-operative SOCIETIES or to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation or to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation by nomination, in preference to the petitioners/ appellants. All the matters were dealt with by a learned single Judge of this Court, except Writ Petition No. 209 of 1977 and a common order was passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting the contention raised by the petitioners/appellants. Though the prayers in all the writ petitions are slightly different from each other, in substance all of them are directed against the attempt of the respondents to grant the privilege of vending liquor to such other Co-operative Societies or Corporations. It will therefor...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)148; [1997]228ITR214(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the direction of this Court, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalties levied under s. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 ?' 2. The ITO found that for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75, the returns showing the income of minor R. Srinivasan-respondent herein were filed only on 17th Feb., 1975 even though they were due on 30th June of each of the assessment years. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings for the delay in filing the returns under s. 271(1)(a) and imposed penalty in the following terms :'In response to a show cause notice to the assessee, Shri S. Rangarajan, father and guardian of the assessee filed a reply on 21st March, 1977 stating that as the auditors M/s Gowrikanth & Co. who were looking after the assessee's income-tax matters too...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »