Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
Stanley Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1304
ORDER1. The petitioner working as a Police Constable attached to the Vazasaravakkam Police Station, is seeking anticipatory bail, in respect of a case registered against him in Cr. No. 508 of 1997, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 394, I.P.C., read with Sections 4(1)(a) and 10(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. The facts of the case are these :- (a) On 10-7-1997 at about 11.00 P.M., one Sekar, the first informant in this case was coming in his cycle from Kundrathur to Saidapet, carrying two rubber bladders, containing 35 Ltrs. of arrack. (b) On the way, opposite to S.R. Company, Nerukampakkam, the petitioner Stanley with a Bullet Motor bike and one Ravi Kumar, another Police Constable with Suzuki bike stopped him, and asked him as to where he did carry the arrack. The complainant said that in order to sell the same at Saidapet, he took the same. Then both these Constables demanded Rs. 3,000/- for not bookin...
Tag this Judgment!R.V.S. and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR192(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran J. 1. Heard both the parties. 2. In Writ Petition No. 7031 of 1988, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent herein in C. No. 1511/10 (1&2) of 1986-87 Cent. I to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in C. No. 1511/10 (1&2) 1986-87 Cent. I dated March 20, 1987, for the assessment year 1982-83 under the Income-tax Act, 1961, direct the first respondent to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act and waive the interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In Writ Petition No. 7086 of 1988, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent in C. No. 1511/10 (1&2)/86/87 Cent. I, quash the impugned order of the first respondent in C. No. 1511/10 (1&2) /86/87 Cent. I dated March 20, 1987, and for the assessment year 1983-84 under the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Home Department a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC347; (1997)IIMLJ604
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.6.1992, passed in W.P. No. 14563 of 1990.2. A Division Bench of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Anr. v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 1 L.W. 326, has held that the delay between the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months. If it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned.3. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that there is no statutory rule of limitation regarding the publication of notice provided Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, discretion should have been exercised only in favour of the validity of the notification . There must be continuity of action in the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette and in the newspapers,...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Marudhupandiyar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC471
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. The petitioner in the above writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in R. No. 6115/A22/87 dated 14.1.1988 and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the excess tax paid over and above 3/4th of tax paid in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration number TML 6239 to the petitioner herein.3. According to Mr. K.M. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was plying a stage carriage bearing registration number TML 6239 for which they paid a sum of Rs. 26,220 as a full tax for half year ending upto 31.3.1985 on 8.10.1984, subsequently the above said vehicle was replaced by another vehicle bearing registration number TML 2092 with effect from 13.10.1984. Thereafter the tax endorsement made to the said vehicle TML 6239 was cancelled in R. No. 3045/A4/84. Subsequently the said vehicle was repla...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Post ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ207
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. By the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal, the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with backwages has been ordered. The employer of the 2nd respondent herein was described by the petitioner herein as canteen managing committee with the post master as the chairman of that managing committee. That committee is not registered under the Societies Act, Co-operative Societies Act or under any other law. The canteen was run for the benefit of the employees of the 2nd petitioner's office. It was a non-statutory departmental canteen. The Industrial Tribunal has found on facts, that the 2nd respondent herein the workman had been employed as a cook, and that on account of quarrel with the another co-employee, the employer had struck off his name from the rolls, after which he went on a fast and was arrested by the police. Before the police, the Post Master had submitted that the services of the workman/ 2nd respondent had been terminated. The termination was wi...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniyan and Five ors. Vs. Sadaya Padayachi and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ314
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed by the legal heirs of the judgment- debtor in O.S.No. 104 of 1981, on the file of District Munsif s Court, Perambalur.2. The material averments may be summarised as follows:The original defendant Andi Padayachi is the judgment-debtor in the case. First respondent herein filed a suit and obtained simple money decree against the defendant. In execution of the decree, property belonging to deceased defendant was attached for realisation of the decree amount on 27.11.1982. The decree amount payable as per the Execution Petition was below Rs. 9,000. For realising this amount, 6 acres of land with various trees and a well were brought to sale. It is the case of the defendant that there was no proper proclamation for sale and he was also not given prior notice before settlement of proclamation.3. Originally the upset price was fixed at Rs. 40,000 and the entire property was brought to sale. The sale was posted on 1.2.1984. On that date, the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu El ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1043Mad
Shivappa, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated February 15, 1996, in W. P. No. 9198 of 1989. 2. The prayer of the writ petitioner in the writ ition was to quash the order dated April 5, 1989 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to take disciplinary action against the workmen only on the basis of certified standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, (hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act'). Under the Act, Standing Orders will have to be certified in respect of the workmen employed by the first respondent herein and there were two standing or one to the clerical cadre and the other to the cardres other than clerical cadre. These orders occupied the field except with some minor modifications and without any difficulty in working out the problems in the event of eventuality not conducive to the establishment. 3. When once the Standing Orders are certified under Section 5 of the Act, by...
Tag this Judgment!Vengalaveeran Vs. Rajendran and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC371; (1997)IIMLJ556
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, who was unsuccessful in E.A.36 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Pattukottai, as well as C.M.A.No. 44 of 1995 on the file of District Court, Thanjavur, is the revision petitioner.2. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No. 36 of 1994 in E.P.No. 2 of 1993 in O.S.No. 43 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Pattukottai under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. to raise the attachment dated 3.2.1994. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he had purchased the property on 16.6.1986, that he is the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property, that he has been in enjoyment of the same, that the order of attachment effected on 3.2.1994 as if it is still owned by respondents 3 to 7 judgment debtors, is a misconception, that he property is not liable to be attached, that deliberately his property had been attached and that the order of attachment is illegal, inoperative and the same is liable to be set aside.3. The contesting respondents 1 and 2 filed a det...
Tag this Judgment!Adaikam Ambalam Vs. P. Renuka Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ516
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner herein filed I.A. Nos. 98, 99 and 106, 24 and 30 of 1996 in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1995 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul Anna District and by a common order dated 29.10.1996, the District Court allowed the applications I.A. Nos. 24 and 30 of 1996 while dismissing I.A. Nos. 98, 99 and 196 of 1996. Being aggrieved by the rejection of I.A. Nos. 98, 99 and 106 of 1996, the present revisions have been preffered.2. The petitioner herein instituted the suit O.S. No. 1405 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul for relief of permanent in-junction forbearing the respondent from putting up any construction on the suit property. The said suit is pending on the file of the trial Court. Pending the suit the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1604 of 1994 for the relief of interim injunction. After, contest, the trial Court dismissed the injunction application. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the injunction application, the petitioner prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: [2000]242ITR456(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this court for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount set apart for credit to the 'molasses storage fund account' is an allowable deduction in the computation of income ?' 2. A similar case came up for consideration before this court in CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1998]229ITR285(Mad) , wherein this court held that the amount set apart for 'molasses storage fund' is an allowable deduction. Inasmuch as the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the abovesaid decision of this court, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »