Chennai Court November 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.
Khuzema Mohd. Mamuwala Vs. Shabbir Taherbhai Ranijiwala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)209; 1998CriLJ2680; 1997(3)CTC418
ORDER1. Oral leave for getting a certificate from this Court to file an appeal before the Supreme Court is sought for by Mr. Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner by raising a question, whether the evidence collected relating to certain incident which took place after filing of the complaint would be admissible under sections 8 and 11 of the Evidence Act. 2. I have elaborately dealt with this question in the original order dated 17-9-1997 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner holding that the photographs taken by the complainant subsequent to the filing of the complaint would not be admissible either Sections 8 and 11 of the Evidence Act, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. However, in order to raise this question, the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking oral leave to file an appeal before the Apex Court. 4. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent were heard at length. Both the counsel would elaborately...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thanthi Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR510(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. It is a consolidated statement of the case both at the instance of the assessee as well as by the Revenue for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1967-68 and the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment were validly initiated and completed within the time prescribed 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative whether on the facts and circumstances the ITO could review the entire assessments and on the basis of only the material already on record, change his opinion and make additions to the total income. 3. If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the crediting of the amounts to the Adithanar Educational Institution can be regarded as not sufficient compliance of the provisions of s. 11 relating to the application of the income for charitable purposes and the assessee...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Ramasamy Reddiar (Decd.) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR361(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This reference arises out of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA 2004/Mds/1979 relating to the asst. yr. 1971-72. The Tribunal referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) r/w s. 274(2) or the IT Act after 1st April, 1976 even though reference was made to him prior to 1st April, 1976, and thus cancelling the penalty levied in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1971-72' 2. The ITO before completing the assessment on 23rd March, 1974, initiated the proceedings for penalty under s. 27(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty for concealment of income and referred the matter to the IAC on the same day for the levy of penalty. The IAC by his order dt. 29th August, 1979, imposed the penalty under s. 27(1)(c) of the Act. In the meantime, the Taxation Laws ...
Lakshmi G. Menon Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT279(Mad)
ORDER1. This revision arises against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), dated 6-5-1996 im M.P. No. 46 of 1996 in E.O.C.C. No. 84 of 1995. 2. E.O.C.C. No. 84 of 1395 is a complaint filed by the respondent herein as against Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Madras-32 (first accused) and Mrs. Lakshmi G. Menon, the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. HTL. Limited (second accused). 3. The complaint was filed under various provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the following allegations :- It was alleged that based on the intelligence gathered the first accused was evading payment of duty by suppressing the real value of the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory and was receiving huge amounts from their customers subsequent to the sale of goods, in addition to the amount shown in the invoices, that during the visit of the Central Excise officers, it was found that the first accused had raised debit notes for Rs. 6,21,61,927/- towa...
Management of Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1285Mad
Rengasamy, J.1. This writ petition for the issue of writ of certiorari has been filed to quash the award passed in I.D. No.42 of 1982, dated March 30, 1988, and the common order passed in I.A. Nos. 952 and 1167 of 1987 in I.D. No. 42 of 1982, dated March 25, 1988, by the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, Madras.2. The facts, as narrated in the affidavit of thepetitioner, in brief, are as follows: The second respondent, who was working under the petitioner, which is a textile mill in Thanjavur, on March 29, 1981, had refused to obey the directions of the supervisor of the mill to work in another section and he also refused to leave the mill. Therefore, a charge memo was issued to the second respondent on March 30, 1981, for which an enquiry was conducted by the Personnel Officer of the company. On the side of the management, three witnesses were examined. Before the examination of the second witness for the management, the second respondent wanted to ...
K. Senthamarai and anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Cb Cid and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC196
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Petitioners Tmt. K. Senthamarai, the wife and Thiru. Krishnaraj, the husband, who are the accused in Crime No. l of 1996 on the file of CB CID, Madurai, have preferred this revision challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 28-1-1997 directing the petitioners to appear on 17-2-1997 and to produce the original relinquishment deed in document No. 221 of 1995 registered on 4.7.1995 and a registered will in document No. 72 of 1995.2. The facts that are discernible from the petition and the counter filed before the Court and are relevant and required for the disposal of this revision, could be stated as follows:-(a) One Tmt.Dhanalakshmi, the wife of J.K.K. Natarajan, the second respon- dent in this revision, filed a complaint to the first respondent police on 5.2.1996 alleging that the above referred documents, which were sought ...
Renuka Devi Vs. D. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC567; (1998)IIMLJ245
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 5345 of 1997, on the file of the VII Assistant. City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petition. The plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant filed this suit for injunction, to restrain her from entering into the building. It is the case of the respondent that the defendant let out the building to him, by virtue of an affidavit dated 17.7.97, on his agreeing to pay the the monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. It is also his case that he has paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 as advance to the petitioner. It is further averred in the plaint, that on 31.7.97 at about 10.00 a.m. the defendant came to the suit premises, and wanted the plaintiff to vacate the premises, on the ground, that the plaintiff happened to be a brother of an Advocate. She also offered to return the sum of Rs. 40,000 which has been paid as advance. The plaintiff did not agree for the same, which created a misunderstanding between the parties. It is his further case t...
Thanislas and ors. Vs. G. Pankiraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ731
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 1085 of 1992, on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court at Nagercoil, are the petitioners herein.2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit as O.S. No. 617 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Padmanabhapuram, for partition, which was transferred to Nagercoil and renumbered as O.S. No. 1085 of 1992. Pending litigation, respondent herein filed I.A. No. 1364 of 1991 and prayed for an interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from demolishing an old building in the property which was, the subject matter of the suit, and also from proceeding with any construction. An interim injunction was granted on 21.8.1991 and the order was also confirmed on 4.9.1991, though ex parte.3. Petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 1712 of 1991 to set aside the ex parte order of injunction and the said petition was allowed by order dated 10.11.1993. The injunction application already filed by plaintiff was renumbered as I.A. No. 1...
Renuka Devi Vs. D. Manohara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ245
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 5345 of 1997, on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant filed this suit for injunction to restrain her from entering into the building. It is the case of the respondent that the defendant let out the building to him, by virtue of an affidavit dated 17.7.1997, on his agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. It is also his case that he had paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 as advance to the petitioner, it is further averred in the plaint, that on 31.7.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., the defendant came to the suit premises, and wanted the plaintiff to vacate the premises, on the ground, that the plaintiff happened to be a brother of an Advocate. She also offered to return the sum of Rs. 40,000 which has been paid as advance. The plaintiff did not agree for the same, which created a misunderstanding between the parties. It is his further case ...
Kalaisamy Nadar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2389
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment in S.C. No. 39 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of one Mahalingam and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also convicting for the offence under section 326, I.P.C. for having attacked P.W. 1 Kalaisamy Nadar and caused grievous injuries and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The crux of the charge is that on 26-3-1985 at about 9 a.m. at Vandipathai near Mamsapuram, the appellant with Palai aruval attacked the deceased Mahalingam, while he was talking with P.W. 1 Kalaiswamy Nadar on the left leg and nape of the neck indiscriminately and while P.W. 1 intervened, he attacked him also and caused grievous injuries on the left index finger. With the result the deceased Mahalingam died at Madurai Raj...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »