Chennai Court December 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. Alwar Nagiah Vs. State Through Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1365
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.R.P. No. 42 of 1993 dated 12-10-1993 setting aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai, in C.M.P. No. 10751 of 1992 in Calendar Case No. 637 of 1989 dated 17-5-1993. 2. The facts which are relevant and required for the disposal of the revision are as follows : In pursuance of the conspiracy, during the period from Oct. 1981 to Sept. 1982, the petitioner who is a Jailor, Central Prison, Madurai along with others prepared as many as 135 bogus jail certificates and that thereafter, the petitioner signed in all the bogus jail certificate without the knowledge of the Superintendent of the Central Prison, who is an authorised officer to issue such certificates, thereby facilitating the alleged freedom fighters to falsely claim the Freedom Fighters, pension from the Government. 3. Originally the case was registered in Crime No. 11/1983 on the f...
Ramesh Vs. A. Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)420; 1998CriLJ1959
ORDER1. The interesting question that arises in this petition is : Whether in the proceedings initiated in a private complaint, one of the accused is entitled to the copy of the complaint, even when the other accused persons do not appear before the Court : 2. The facts that are relevant to dispose of the present petition are these : The complainant who is the respondent herein filed a complaint against a partnership firm (A1) and two others, including the petitioner (A3) being a partner of the partnership firm, for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the lower Court on 19-9-1997. The second accused Mrs. Brinda Vaidyanathan did not appear on that date. However, a petition under section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on her behalf of the same was allowed. The bearing was adjourned to 26-9-1997 for her presence. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application in Crl. M.P. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. S.J.S. Selvalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)638; [1999]240ITR934(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a widow of one Jayarama Pillai of Thuraiyur, Trichy. The said Jayarama Pillai passed away on 21st July, 1973 leaving behind him his wife Selvalakshmi Ammal, the assessee herein, his minor son Muthukumar and six daughters, of which four were unmarried, as legal heirs. The said Jayarama Pillai, at the time of his death, was a partner in the firm called, A. S. R. M. Subbiah Pillai, Trichy company. According to the Revenue, the said Jayarama Pillai bequeathed his share including income to his minor son Muthukumar by appointing his brother-in-law, i.e., the maternal uncle of the minor as guardian and the minor son at the time of the death of his father Jayarama Pillai had properties of current accounts as well as a share in the partnership firm. There were 11 partners in the firm M/s A. S. R. M. Subbiah Pillai, Trichy Company, and the assessee is one of the partners. The assessments under the provisions of the IT Act in the case of the assessee fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR578(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J. 1. The assessee is a company promoted by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The assessee is engaged in the business of financing industries and extending financial assistance to small scale industries. For the assessment year 1974-75, for the purpose of computing the capital under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 9,16,688 representing the bond redemption fund should be treated as a part of the paid-up capital for the purpose of computing the capital under the Act. The Surtax Officer however, was of the view that this was in the nature of a provision created to meet a known liability since the loan became due for payment in 1983. He, therefore, held that the said sum of Rs. 9,16,688 cannot be included as part of the capital and completed the assessment under the Surtax Act. 2. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed the view of the Surtax Officer ho...
Syed Ibrahim Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2711; [1999]235ITR394(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The impugned order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 282 of 1996 in E.O.C.C. Nos. 263 to 265 of 1994, dated October 3, 1996, by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, fixing the petitioner to represent the A-1 firm in prosecution proceedings, is challenged in this revision. 2. Mr. Sundar, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Sunder Mohan, counsel on record appearing for the petitioner, would mainly contend that the order passed by the lower court on the application filed by the complainant - Income-tax Officer, the respondent herein, under section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure making the petitioner as the representative to the first accused firm cannot be sustained under law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. The facts of the case are these : The Income-tax Officer filed a complaint against the first accused firm and its partner, Peer Mohideen (A-2), for the offences under the Income-tax Act. When the ...
V. Devarajan Vs. R. Purushothaman and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC22; (1998)IIMLJ518
ORDER1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. According to theplaintiff, the suit property is an undivided property among the plaintiff andother co-sharers, including one B. Rengasamy Naidu. In O.S.No.257 of 1946,a large item of property was sought to be partitioned. The said B. RengasamyNaidu has half share in the entire property. The plaintiff got 2/24 i.e., 1/12thshare in the suit property.In O.S.NO. 257 of 1946, the Court directed the suit property to be sold and shared by the sharers, but that was not done. The defendants 2 and 3 purchased a portion of the suit property from Rengasamy Naidu. They wereattempting to put up some construction in the undivided suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.3. The written statement filed by defendants 1 to 3, it is contended that they are the co-sharers in the suit property. The plaintiff is not entitled for partition against his co-sharers. His remedy is to file a sui...
Mrs. May George Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Industria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC109; (1998)IIMLJ397
ORDER1. Petitioner, May George, has questioned the acquisition of the property that was purchased by her in the year 1969, the compulsory acquisition proceedings having been initiated by a notification issued under Sec. 4(1) as also under Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.1.1976. This writ petition was filed 10 years later in the year 1986.2. Petitioner has averred that she had served as Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and she retired from its service as Chief Engineer and thereafter set up an industrial unit on this land in or around 1976. According to her, the land has all along been in her possession.3. It is not in dispute that the proceedings for compulsory acquisition of this land namely S.No.36-1A-1 situate in Saidapet Taluk was notified for acquisition on 7.1.1976 and that notification had been published in the Government Gazette dt. 11.2.1976. The public purpose for which this and otherlands mentioned in the notification totalling an extent of abou...
Kumaran Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR564(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional payment made in pursuance of a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act would not qualify for deduction under section 37 ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of yarn. For the assessment year 1980-81 for which the accounting year ended on December 31, 1979, the assessee filed a return of income admitting the income of Rs. 60,53,060 and the assessee claimed deduction towards the provision made for bonus at 32 per cent. of the wages for the year 1979 amounting to Rs. 9,81,483. The provision was made by debiting the amount to the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer restricted the provision to 20 per cent. of the wages being the maxim...
Natarajan Chettiar and 5 ors. Vs. Venkatachalam and 8 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC597
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The first appellant, on his behalf and on behalf of his deceased wife Kaliammal and his children, the appellants 2 to 6, executed an usufructuary mortgage on 7.9.1964 in favour of one Rakkia Gounder. The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are the children and the sixth respondent is the wife of the said Rakkiya Gounder. To redeem the said mortgage, the appellants filed O.P.No.l of 1981 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Tiruppur, stating that in view of the provisions of the Act 40 of 1979 the mortgage had become discharged and so the respondents have to deliver possession of the said mortgaged property to the appellants. The said petition was resisted by the respondents. The lower Court rejected the petition holding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the said Act and that the said mortgage dated 7.9.1964 marked as Ex.A-1 is a sale deed and not mortgage deed as claimed by the appellants. The lower appellate court on Appeal filed by the A...
Mrs. May George Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Industri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ397
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner, May George, has questioned the acquisition of the property that was purchased by her in the year 1969, the compulsory acquisition proceedings having been initiated by a notification issued under Section 4(1) as also under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.1.1976. This writ petition was filed 10 years later in the year 1986.2. Petitioner has averred that she had served as Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and she retired from its service as Chief Engineer and thereafter set up an industrial unit on this land in or around 1976. According to her, the land has all along been in her possession.3. It is not in dispute that the proceedings for compulsory acquisition of this land namely S. No. 36-1 A-1 situate in Saidapet Taluk was notified for acquisition on 7.1.1976 and that notification has been published in the Government Gazette dated 11.2.1976. The public purpose for which this and other lands mentioned in the notific...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »