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.
G. Lakshmanan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)451; 1998CriLJ3099
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3 praying for discharge under Sections 204 and 242(2), Cr. P.C.2. The counsel for the petitioners has raised several points objecting to the jurisdiction of the lower Court as well as maintainability of the complaint.3. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated by the Food Inspector should be quashed on the sole ground that there is no sufficient material as against the petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, to file a complaint under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.4. It is seen from the records that the Food Inspector went and inspected the shop of accused No. 1 Palandi, who is not the petitioner herein and took sample of asafoetida. On analysis, it was found to be adulterated. After getting report, the Food Inspector sent a requisition to the Joint Dir...
Munimalaiyan and ors. Vs. Chennammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ455
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiffs who lost before the lower appellate court are the appellants herein. They filed the suit O.S.No. 542 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur for redemption. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property belong to one Munimalaiyan who mortgaged the suit property along with other properties to the defendant on 20.12.1961 for a sum of Rs. 3,000. He was paying the interest regularly every year. On 22.10.1970 the said Munimalaiyan executed the mortgage by conditional sale in respect of the same property and handed over possession of the suit property to the defendant. Though the deed mentions as if it is a conditional sale, it is not a sale virtually but it is only a simple mortgage. As per the recitals in the said deed, the plaintiffs had to redeem the mortgage within three years, failing which the defendant is entitled to have the patta transferred in his name. On the date of execution of the deed of mortgage by conditional sale i.e., 22...
Sambavathi Vs. Bhagavan Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ696
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The judgment-debtor third defendant in O.S.No. 60 of 1985, filed unnumbered E.A. of 1990 in E.P.No. 30 of 1986 to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. she also filed E.A.No. 7 of 1988 to dispense with the calling of security demanded of from her and to permit her to continue the main execution petition. That application was contested by the respondents. The lower court following the judgment reported in Karuppana Gounder v. Velappa Naicker (1988) 1 L.W. 18, dismissed the said application in E.A.No. 7 of 1988. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor/third defendant has filed C.R.P.No. 2016 of 1990. The unnumbered E.P. of 1990 filed to set aside the sale, stated supra, was also dismissed, against which C.M.A.No. 583 of 1992 has been preferred. Consequently E.P.No. 39 of 1986 filed for sale of the property was ordered. Aggrieved by the order passed therein, C.R.P.No. 3064 of 1990 has been preferred.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petiti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Greaves Cotton Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR149(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Tax Case No. 1971 of 1984 :1. The question referred to us for our decision at the instance of the Revenue and arising' out of the respondent's assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 is, as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,75,906 being the foreign collaboration fee paid to the foreign collaborator should be allowed as a revenue expenditure in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of cranes. It had, in response to a tender, floated by the Cochin shipyard offered to design, manufacture, supply and erect crane of 150 tonnes capacity. The petitioner had not manufactured a crane of that capacity earlier and the purchaser, Cochin shipyard, having insisted upon the petitioner involving a reputed foreign crane manufacturer at all stages from the stage of design to the time of erection. The petitioner entered into an agreement with a German company for obtaining design and...
R. Rajendran, Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR368(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. In C. C. No. 76 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras, six accused were tried for the following offences :A-1--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ;A-2--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and 277 of the Income-tax Act (4 counts) ;A-3--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and 277 of the Income-tax Act (3 counts);A-4--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and 277 of the Income-tax Act ;A-5--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and 277 of the Income-tax Act ;A-6--Under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and 277 of the Income-tax Act.2. At the end of the trial, all the accused were convicted as follows : A-1, being a company, was found guilty for the offe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR7(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the turnover or the gross receipts of the assessee-bank would mean aggregate of the advances and banking investments and consequently only ten per cent, of the adjusted expenditure should be disallowed under Section 37(3A)(i) of the Act. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is 1979-80.2. The assessee is a banking company, governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It carries on the business of 'banking' as that expression is defined in Section 5(b) of the Act. The definition of 'banking' in Section 5(b) of the Act reads as under :' 'Banking' means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise.'3. The assessee-bank also carries on other business which a bank...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meenakshi and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR153(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred for the assessment year 1977-78 in respect of the assessee, Meenakshi and Co., Dindigul.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the commission and brokerage paid of Rs. 43,351 would qualify for deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1977-78 ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing to grant weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the commission paid to the State Trading Corporation ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm and during the course of the assessment proceedings for 1977-78, the assessee claimed export markets development allowance under Section 35B of the Act. The order of assessment shows that the assessee in support of its claim has produced the items of expenditure, but the In...
P.A. Sundaram Vs. S. Amaravathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ430
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petition is the landlord/ petitioner in R.C.O.P.No. 2720 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No. 491 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The respondent herein is the tenant/respondent before the Rent controller and the appellant before the Appellate Authority. The eviction of the respondent was sought for on the ground of additional accommodation falling under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller ordered eviction and on the appeal preferred by the tenant, the order of eviction was set aside. Hence, the present revision at the instance of the landlord.2. I heard Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Subbiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. According to Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, the Appellate Authority...
Gnanasubramanian Vs. Subramaniaya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ588
D. Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 910 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, who succeeded before the learned trial judge but lost before the first appellate court in A.S. No. 7 of 1983, where under the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, chose to reverse the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge.2. The suit O.S. No. 910 of 1980 came to be filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/4th share of the suit property and 1/4th share rent from the date of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to one Jankirama Pillai and his sons, who are defendants 1 to 3, fourth defendant being the daughter and the fifth defendant the wife of Jankirama Pillai. First defendant sold his 1/4th share to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 5.7.1967, marked as Ex.A-2, and the father Jankirama Pillai is said to have died in the year 1973 leaving behind three son...
Thiruvalluvar Nagar Kudisai Vazh Nala Sangam Vs. the Chairman, Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: AIR2000Mad57
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide the basic amenity of electricity to the locality known as Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Madras-96, and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The writ petition has been filed by an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, which was formed for the welfare of about 4,000 families living at Perungudi, Madras. It is said that majority of the members of the Association are below the poverty line and are only daily wageearners. They have settled down in this area upon some Government poramboke lands at Thiruvalluvar Nagar. They occupied the land some time in 1992. The reason for filing the writ petition is that the hutments are evenwithout basic amenities, and they requested the Electricity Board to provide them with electric connection. At that time, they were informed that the Electricity Board has no objection, provide...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »