Chennai Court April 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.
U.M. Ravichandran, Advocate Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Delhi Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC553
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The Petitioner who is an advocate has filed the above writ petition praying for issue of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish all material particulars to the first respondent in order to effectively complete investigation in all the Districts in Tamil Nadu with respect to construction cremation sheds for Scheduled Caste under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) Scheme.2. The petitioner having the interest of the public in mind filed the above writ petition to expose the scandal in the execution of JRY Scheme, viz., the erection of cremation sheds in all the districts in Tamil Nadu. He was inspired with such an intention from the judgment of the Division Bench dated 27.2.1996 given in W.P.No. 15929 of 1995 (S. Gopalan v. The State of Tamil and 6 Ors.). Since there is no procedure prescribed for initiating a public interest litigation, two letters dated 1.11.1995 and 6.11.1995 sent by one S. Gopalan, addressed to The Honourable the Chief Just...
P. Sundaramama Reddy Vs. Corporation of Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad374; 1997(1)CTC663; (1997)IIMLJ422
ORDERA. R. Lakshmanan, J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order in W. P. No. 12108 of 1994 dated 14-7-1994. dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in W.D.C. No. DA/D8/66/94 dated 27-3-1994 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents I and 2 to issue a demolition order for the premises No. 14, Padmanabhan Street, T. Nagar. Madras-17 without insisting on production of 'no objection letter' from the tenant of the appellant herein.2. The appellant is the owner of the properly bearing Door No. 14, Padmanabhan Street, North T. Nagar, Madras-17. For the purpose of improvement of the property, the appellant had decided to demolish the existing structure standing over the walls and therefore, applied to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Madras-2nd respondent for sanction to demo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Rafeeq Ahmed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR929(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79 for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest on packing credit and commission paid to the State Trading Corporation of India ?' 2. The question consists of two parts with reference to the claim of the assessee of vital deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act,1961. One relates to the claim with reference to the interest on packing credit and the other with reference to the commission paid to the State Trading Corporation of India. In so far as the claim of the assessee relating to the Commission paid to the State Trading Corporation of India is concerned, M...
Mariammal Vs. P. Ramadoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC555
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This matter is relating to the maintainability of the petitioner.2. The petitioner herein was the complainant in Crime No. 705 of 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, for the offences under Sections 447, 448 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence took place in 11-10-1993 and the First Information report also was lodged on the same day. However, the Thirumangalam Town Police, who initiated the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, did not file the charge sheet for more than an year and therefore, the accused therein filed Crl. M.P. No. 2864 of 1994 on 20-10-1994 under Section 167(5) and 468(2), Code of Criminal Procedure to stop the further proceedings and discharge them. The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition discharging the accused persons. Aggrieved of that order, the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, has come forward to this Court and has filed the petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedu...
P. Sundararama Reddy Vs. Corporation of Madras, Represented by Its Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ422
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order in W.P. No. 12108 of 1994 dated 14.7.1994, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in W.D.C. No. DA/D8/66/94, dated 27.5.1994 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue a demolition order for the premises No. 14, Padmanabhan Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17 without insisting on production of 'no objection letter' from the tenant of the appellant herein.2. The appellant is the owner of the property bearing Door No. 14, Padmanabhan Street, North T. Nagar, Madras-17. For the purpose of improvement of the property, the appellant had decided to demolish the existing structure standing over the walls and therefore, applied to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Madras, 2nd respondent for sanction to demolish t...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Ganesa Odyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC433; [1997]227ITR544(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, Actg. CJ.1. A Division Bench of this Court referred the following question for the opinion of the Full Bench : 'Whether a father constituting a family with his wife and children, can by a settlement create a right in favour of his daughters so as to exclude the properties covered by such a settlement deed from the agricultural income-tax ?' 2. The abovesaid question arose from the following facts. One Muthusamy Odayar of Pillarnathan Village was the grandfather of the assessee. The assessee's father was one Palanisamy Odayar. Muthusamy Odayar had admittedly some ancestral property. Subsequently, from the income of that ancestral property as also from the personal earnings of grandfather, father and the assessee, some further properties were acquired. The original ancestral properties as well as the subsequently acquired properties were the subject matter of partition between Muthusamy Odayar. Palanisamy Odayar and the assessee in an oral partition on 5-8-1954 and e...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Trichy Vs. Kathamuthu Bright Industries, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ143Mad
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in Workmen's Compensation Petition No. 97 of 1994. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows : The petitioner was working as a polisher under the first opposite party on a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month for the past six years. On October 26, 1993 during the course of his employment the petitioner sustained an injury on his right hand. The permanent disability caused to the petitioner on account of this employment injury is 40%. The petitioner has therefore made a claim of Rs. 49,850/-. 3. The first opposite party in their objection statement have not admitted the employment of the petitioner. They have also contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and it was a simple injury. He has further contended that a sum of Rs. 1331/- was paid for medical expenses and that the petitioner has not sustained any employment injury to be paid as compensation claimed by him. 4. The se...
K. Leela Kumar Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas610b(Mad)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ appeals are directed against the common order of T. Somasundaram J., dated 30-7-1991, in W.P. Nos. 667 and 769 of 1989, dismissing both the writ petitions filed by the appellants holding that Circular No. 32 of 1975, dated 1-11-1975, issued by the first respondent is not a statutory circular, that it is only an administrative instruction given at department level and that the appellants, who are third parties, cannot seek to enforce the same.2. The appellants are members of the third respondent club, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The Secretary of the third respondent on 3-1-1989, issued a notice to the appellants stating that the appellants in their letter to the members had commented about the functioning of the committee of the third respondent, that the same was not conclusive to the interest of the third respondent and that, therefore, the appellants should show cause why appropriate ac...
Jayalakshmiammal Vs. L. Venkataramaiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC37; (1997)IIMLJ494
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed in Guardian O.P.No.194/1988 on the file of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.2. The petitioner's case is as follows: The petitioner was working as a School Assistant in Pagalur in Hosur taluk. The first respondent is his mother-in-law. Second respondent is the son of the first respondent. The petitioner has married the daughter of the first respondent and three children were born to them. The wife of the petitioner died on 13.7.1988. The respondents who came to the condolence, took the children of the petitioner saying that they will keep them with them and bring them for the 11th day ceremony. They took them to their village and brought them back on 23.7.1988 to the petitioner. Thereafter, they have assured the petitioner that they will bring the children for the 30th day ceremony. Neither the respondents nor his children came to the 30th day ceremony. The first respondent is aged 85 years. She is a widow. She is...
Ranganathan Vs. S. Kuppuraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC489
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The judgment-debtor, aggrieved against the order of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 2.4.1993 passed in R.E.P.No. 483 of 1990 in O.S.No. 1764 of 1981, has filed the above revision petition. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 1764 of 1981 for recovery of money given to the petitioner under a promissory note. The trial court passed a decree on 23.10.1987. Admittedly, the said decree has become final. On the basis of the decree, the respondent filed Execution Petition in R.E.P.No. 483 of 1990 to execute the decree. Even in the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein was served only by affixture. Though the court granted time for filing counter, it was not filed and when the petition was called on 27.6.1991 neither his counsel nor the petitioner herein did appear before the court and so attachment was ordered. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed a counter statement stating that he is entitled to the relief under Act 13 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »