Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
Ravirajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3086
1. The above appeal arises out of the Judgment of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No. 64/90D/-27-7-90. 2. The Accused/Appellant herein was charged under S. 302, I.P.C. for having allegedly killed one Khalyboy Shahnawaz on 22-5-89 at about 10.00 p.m. in front of the Durga Hotel near Anna Statue, Salem. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under S. 304, Part II and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. As against the said judgment, the above appeal has been filed. 3. The case of the above appeal has been filed, Mohan is resident of Salem who is running a cool drink stall in the portion of the Durga Hotel situated near the bus stand of Salem Town. Both the accused Ravirajan as well as one Ravi were employed as helpers under him on daily wage basis and that the accused was working for the past 1 1/2 years. PW 2 is therefore known to the accused and Ravi and PW 3 is the owner of the Beeda stall which is situated adj...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Cegat, South Zonal Bench, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(100)ELT34(Mad)
1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner wants the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in Order No. 83 of 1996, dated 12-6-1996 and quash the same and for further directing the first respondent to modify its Order No. 862 of 1995, dated 24-11-1995 as prayed for in the petitioner's rectification Application No. E/ROM/256/96 MAS in E/563/91. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes and has its factory at Salem. The goods are cleared from the factory of the petitioner on payment of excise duty. Until 1989, petitioner's factory was under the physical control of the Excise Department and the goods were cleared from the factory after verification of the gate passes and other documents by the Central Excise Officer who is in charge of the petitioner's factory. While so, on 24-6-1989, 28-6-1989 and 15-7-1989, Excise Officers visited the petitioner's fac...
Tag this Judgment!H.T.L. Ltd., Madras Vs. Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)IMLJ194
ORDER1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated October 31, 1995, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the manufacture of telecommunication equipments. The Company has 1658 number of employees on its rolls. As per the decision taken by All India Public Sector Sports Control Board, it was decided that the Sports Board should be constituted in all Public Sector undertakings. Such a Sports Board had been founded on May 1, 1974 by the petitioner. In view of the said decision, 4th respondent viz., Hindustan Teleprinters Sports and Welfare Board was constituted as a separate entity in the year 1974 by the petitioner Company. In order to widen the scope and activities to include cultural, recreational and other social activities like film show, picnics etc., it has been decided to c...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Anand and ors. Vs. Indian Investment Centre and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ982Mad
Shivappa, J. 1. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated September 2, 1993 made in W. P. Nos. 4960, 4962 and 4965 of 1986. 2. Respondent No. 1 was set up by Government of India and it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act to render assistance to nonresident Indians to make Investment in India so that opportunities could be improved by encouraging new entrepreneurs. It decided to set up Entrepreneurial Guidance Bureau (for short EGB') in certain important centres in India, of which one was located at Madras. Respondent No. 4 is one such officer. He was to hold charge of EGB at Madras. The appellants, viz., Ms. Radha Anandan was appointed as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in February, 1981, Mr. N. Ananthakrishnan as Clerk-eum-Typist and Mr. N. Jayakumar as Farash-both in May, 1977 in EGB at Madras. 3. On December 23, 1981 Respondent No. 125 decided to wind up all the branches of EGB located at vario...
Tag this Judgment!Reiter Machine Works Ltd. and Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR531(Mad)
R.R. Jain, J.1. Since both these appeals involve a common question of law, namely, scope and interpretation of Section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), they are disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts and figures as referred to and giving rise to W. A. No. 921 of 1994 are only referred to hereunder.2. The appellant is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cloth. Necessary income returns were submitted for the assessment year 1975-76. The second respondent, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-I, Coimbatore, completed the assessment by his order dated March 20, 1978. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), disputing addition in the income to the tune of Rs. 3,73,341, though according to the appellant, it was not an income defined under the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner, the first respondent (si...
Tag this Judgment!Periyaswamy and 10 ors. Vs. Kaliammal and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC377; (1997)IIMLJ598
ORDERD. Raju, J1. Though the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs 1,2 and 4 and respondents 6 to 13 the heirs of the 3rd plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 appear to be the appellants before the first appellate court. The suit O.S.No. 224 of 1977 was filed on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam for specific performance directing the defendants to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500 being the amount of reconveyance deposited into court and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and in default to have it done through court.2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the respective contentions of the parties are not in serious controversy. On 27.2.1960, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to one late Chinna Karuppan for a sum of Rs. 1500 as per the terms of a registered sale deed. On the same day, the plaintiffs and late Chinna Karuppan entered into a separate agreement to recovery the property to the plaintiffs, if they paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores Represented by Partner, Sushil Kum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ289
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. Eviction petition was filed to evict the petitioner on the ground that the building is required for owner's occupation, that is for the partnership business of the respondent's sons. This has been opposed by the petitioner herein. But however, the Rent Controller has Order ed eviction and allowed the R.C.O.P. The appeal filed was dismissed by the appellate authority. Now the petitioner has filed the present revision.2. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the primary factor is bona fide in a case where eviction is sought for on the ground of owner's occupation. The respondent filed earlier H.R.C.No. 1659 of 1987 stating that his son Madanagopal is interested in setting up a business of his own and therefore he requires the shop for own use. The said petitions was dismissed holding that the son of the respondent was not carrying on any business and has also not made any preparati...
Tag this Judgment!Htl Ltd. Vs. Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, 4th Division and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ194
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 31.10.1995, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the manufacture of telecommunication equipments. The company has 1,658 number of employees on its rolls. As per the decision taken by All India Public Sector Sports Control Board, it was decided that the Sports Board should be constituted in all public sector undertakings. Such a Sports Board had been founded on 1.5.1974 by the petitioner. In view of the said decision, 4th respondent viz., Hindustan Teleprinters Sports and Welfare Board was constituted as a separate entity in the year 1974 by the petitionercompany. In order to widen the scope and activities to include cultural recreational and other social activities like film show, picnics etc., it has been decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. K. Manjula Vs. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ648
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First respondent in Election (Original) Petition No. 146 of 1996, on the file of Election Tribunal (District Judge), Chengalpattu, is the revision petitioner. First respondent herein filed the above petition to declare the election of the petitioner herein as Member of Ward No. 16 of Kadambathur Panchayat Union, Chengai M.G.R. District as void, illegal and inoperative, and also to declare the first respondent herein as the successful candidate in the Membership of Ward No. 16, and for consequential reliefs.2. I do not want to go into the facts of the case, since the matter now under consideration is with respect to I.A. No. 199 of 1997, which was filed by the present petitioner to reject the election petition as not maintainable. In the affidavit filed in support of that I.A., she contended that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 deals with election petitions. Under Rule 123, the election petition should be presented within 15 days from t...
Tag this Judgment!Reiter Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)206
R. R. JAIN, J.Since both these appeals involve a common question of law, namely scope and interpretation of s. 264(4)(c) of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, they are disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts and figures as referred and giving rise to WA No. 921/94 are only referred hereunder.2. The appellant is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cloth. Necessary income returns were submitted for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The second respondent, ITO, Companies Circle-I, Coimbatore, completed the assessment by his order dt. 20th March, 1978. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), disputing addition in the income to the tune of Rs. 3,73,541 though, according to the appellant, was not an income defined under the IT Act. The CIT, the first respondent accepted the contention and allowed the appeal by his order dt. 28th Oct., 1978, and thus the liability to pay in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »