Chennai Court March 1998 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.
The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Vs. L. Gheverchand JaIn and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1292
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-3-1989 rendered in C.C. No. 51 of 1988 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in acquitting both the accused, who are the respondents herein from the charges framed under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The charge as framed against the respondents herein by the Court below is that on 6-6-1984 at about 4-00 p.m. near Anna Statue bus stop, when the Central Excise Officers of Coimbatore were on patrol, they intercepted the first respondent herein, who alighted from the bus and on inspection and interrogation he was not only found to be in possession of gold bars weighing 2119.300 grams worth Rs. 4,25,979.30 but also came to be known that the said contraband had been entrusted with him by the second respondent without any valid permit or document and hence both the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 8(1), 31,36,38, 55 read with 85(1)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.2. In proof of th...
Deputy Director of Enforcement Vs. A.M. Ceaser
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT804(Mad)
V. Rengasamy, J.1. This appeal is against the reversing judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in C.A. No. 564 of 1987 for the offences under Sections 8(1) read with Section 56(1)(i) and 9(1)(f)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter to be referred to as FERA.2. The respondent/accused was prosecuted for the above-said offences that came to be known from the search made in his business premises on 22-6-1981 and also from the statement made by him under Ex. P. 7 in the presence of P.W. 2 on the same day.3. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences I), Chennai, who tried this case, has found the accused/respondent guilty of the offences and has convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to each of these offences. On appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, the finding of the trial court has been reversed and the respondent/accuse...
Ramalakshmi and anr. Vs. K. Kalidose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ334
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 45 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Thanjavur under Sections 10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960). According to the petitioners, the respondent/ tenant committed default for the period from August, 1986 to December, 1990. So, according to them, the tenant, has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed counter. The Rent Controller in his order dated 30.8.1991 rejected the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 24 of 1991 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority, Thanjavur. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision.2. It is not in dispute that the tenant has to pa...
Jayakandammal Vs. Kodian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ470
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,581 from the defendant due under a promissory note. The case of the plaintiff was that on 1.5.1974 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 and in evidence of the same, he executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has not paid the money and the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 17.11.1975; since the defendant has not paid the money in spite of the demand, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,581. The defendant though raised a plea that he has not only not borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note, but also raised a plea that he was entitled to the benefits of a 'small farmer' as defined under Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act 31 of 1976). The trial court dismissed the suit filled holding that the defendant has not executed the suit promissor...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN574(Mad)
C.A. No. 64 7 of 19901. This appeal is preferred by the complainant, Assistant Commissioner, Salem, against the order of acquittal passed in F.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989. The case of the complainant is that the first accused is a private limited company engaged in running a spinning mill in the name and the style of 'Jawahar Mills Limited'.The second, third and fourth accused are the principal officers of the first accused who are responsible for the conduct of the business. The provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') prescribed the mode of acceptance of any deposit or loan by the income-tax assessee. The above provision has come into force with effect from 1-7-1984. On scrutiny of the books of account of the first accused company for the year 31-3-1985, it was noticed that the first accused accepted deposit of Rs. 10,000 or more violating the provisions of section 269SS. In the case of Vaiyapuri, an amount of Rs. 30,000 was received in cash on 8-1-1985.The comp...
Mohamed Asif Vs. State Represented by Additional Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC504
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the petitioner of 4th accused to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.4/97 on the file of XIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court (Special Judge), Madras pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No.952 of 1997. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner of 4th accused was a public servant on the date of taking cognisance of the case by the Special Judge, and the Court should not have taken cognisance of the offences for want of previous sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, and in these circumstances all the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 1997 on the file of XIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court (Special Judge) at Madras should be stayed pending disposal of Crl. Revision Case No.952 of 1997. 3. The learned Government Advocate opposed this stay petition by stating that there is a clear bar to grant stay under Section 19(3)(b) and (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, and so this stay peti...
Eximel India Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT398(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the third respondent on the Bill of Entry/Rotation No. 900/1988, dated 28-10-1988 and to quash the same and to extend the benefits of Exemption Notification No. 208 of 1981 as amended from time to time and 87/88. 2. The petitioner has been importing life saving equipments and sup-plying the same to several Government Hospitals. The petitioner imported 1,10,000 pcs. containing 220 cartons of Infusion sets 'JMS' Brand, M.V. Indian Courier under the Bill of Entry/Rotation No. 900/88, dated 28-10-1988 and claimed concessional assessment for the above said imported goods under Customs Notification No. 208 of 1981 as amended from time to time which ex-empts customs duty on the articles set out in the notification. But the Customs Authorities disallowed the claim of exemption and assessed the goods to a Basic Duty of 40% plus 45% Auxiliary duty as we...
V. Ramalingam Vs. Thayamuthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ241
ORDERS.M. Siddickk, J.1. This is an petition filed by the petitioner/ judgment-debtor under Section 115 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 1.8.1997 made in an unnumbered E.A. of 1997 in E.P.No. 4 of 1997 in O.S.No. 124 of 1996 on the file of District at Paramakudi.2. On a perusal of the papers it appears that the respondents/decree-holder in pursuance of an ex parte decree levied execution in E.P. 4 of 1997 in O.S.No. 124 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif at Paramakudi under Order 21, Rule 48 of C.P.C. to attach a sum of Rs. 1,113 in the monthly salary of the petitioner/judgment-debtor herein by issuing an order of garnishee.3. In the said execution petition the petitioner/judgment-debtor entered appearance in person on 4.4.1997 and on the next hearing date i.e., on 6.6.1997 he remained absent and he was set ex parte and thereafter notice was issued by the execution court to the 2nd respondent viz., garnishee, and the Garnishee remained absent on 4.7.1997, and so the order of ...
K. Ponniah Vs. M/S. Golden Hills Estates Private Limited Vilangudi, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC458; (1998)IIMLJ346
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.250 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai who was the appellant in A.S.No.131 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Madurai has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 2. The appellant herein was employed by the defendant company in various capacities and he has filed the suit challenging the termination of his services by an order dated 23.11.1973 passed by the defendant/respondent as null and void and deemed to be in service, of the respondent. The Suit was filed for declaration and for damages. As the courts below have elaborately dealt with the facts of the case and arrived at a concurrent finding and the said facts have not been very much challenged before this Court and argument was advanced on the question of law, it is not necessary to state the averments in the plaint and written statement. 3. This Court while admitting the second appeal has framed the fol...
K. Ponniah Vs. Golden Hills Estates Private Limited, Represented Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ346
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 250 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai who was the appellant in A.S.No. 131 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.2. The appellant herein was employed by the defendant company in various capacities and he has filed the suit challenging the termination of his services by an Order dated 23.11..1973 passed by the defendant/respondent as null and void and deemed to be in service, of the respondent. The suit was filed for declaration and for damages. As the courts below have elaborately dealt with the facts of the case and arrived at a concurrent finding and the said facts have not been very much challenged before this Court and argument was advanced on the question of law, it is not necessary to state the averments in the plaint and written statement.3. this Court while admitting the second appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »