Chennai Court March 1999 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.
V. Ramanathan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3885
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. V. Ramanathan, the appellant herein, was working as Rural Development Officer in the Agricultural Development Branch of State Bank of India, Udumalpet. He was convicted for the offences under Section 5(1)(c) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 477A and 409, I.P.C. in C.C. No. 4/87 on the file of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore by the judgment dated 28-2-89.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, while functioning as Rural Development Officer in the said bank misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,407-75 received from the borrowers towards repayment of agricultural crop loan and term loan, by abusing his official power as a public servant, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the amounts entrusted to him by illegal means thereby he obtained himself pecuniary advantage by making false entries in the relevant registers kept in the office and thereby he was liable to be convicted under Sections...
Packiam Ammal and ors. Vs. Pattu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ757
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 308 of 1981, on. the file of Sub Court, Vridhachalam, are the appellants herein.2. One Muthappa Udayar had two sons and a daughter, by name Chinnadurai, Subramnia Udayar and Pattu Ammal. Muthappa Udayar died in 1965 leaving behind his widow Pakkiam Ammal two sons and daughter named above. Chinnadurai died in 1948 issueless and unmarried. The suit for partition was filed by the widow of Muthappa Udayar as first plaintiff and the wife of Subramania Udayar and his children born in that marriage as plaintiffs 2 to 4. Subramania Udayar is the first defendant and Pattu Ammal, daughter, is the second defendant, First plaintiff claimed half share and second plaintiff claimed 5/24 share in the property, and they wanted all the plaint schedule items to be divided by metes and bounds. In the B schedule, there are 11 items of immovable properties. It is alleged in the plaint that all the items belong to the joint family of Muthappa Udayar, and after the d...
Indian Cotton Mills Federation Export Incentive Department Vs. Transwo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ122
S.S. Subramani, J.1. These appeals are filed by second defendant on O.S. No. 8542 of 1977 and O.S. No. 7722 of 1977 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Judge's Court, Madras. A.S. No. 720 of 1985 arises from O.S. No. 8542 of 1977 and A.S. No. 721 of 1985 arises from O.S. No. 7722 of 1977.2. Suits were filed by respective plaintiffs against two defendants; one Union of India and appellant herein in respective suits for recovery of cash incentives. Plaintiffs are exporters of handloom garments and it is their case that Government of India had announced a scheme in or about 1970 promising to release incentives to exporters on value basis of exports every month. Government had declared a cash incentive of 15% of export value of goods exported to be paid to exporters through second defendant. Evidence of exports will have to be forwarded to second defendant and processed through it and second defendant would pay the same from out of funds provided by first defendant. It is said that beli...
Ekambaram Vs. E. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC693; (1999)IIMLJ575
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit in O.S.No. 828 of 1982 before the District Munsif, Kancheepuram against the respondent herein for damages for malicious prosecution. The case as set out in the plaint was asfollows: The appellate belonged to a respectable family and was working as assessor in the Electricity Board earning a monthly salary of Rs. 900. He also possessed properties worth Rs. 30,000. By reason of his employment in a Government office the appellant had earned the goodwill of his fellow employees and the general public. He commanded a good reputation. Though the respondent was a close relation of the appellant, with malice the respondent lodged a criminalcomplaint against the appellate and two others Arumuga Mudaliar and Murugesa Mudaliar before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram in C.C.No. 556 of 1981 under sections 341 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. For the case the appellant had to go to the court 10 times. During his trips to the court the enqui...
M/S. Ram Mohan and Co Rep. by Its Proprietrix R. Renuka and Another Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC40; (1999)3MLJ423
ORDER1. These Second Appeals are directed against a common judgment of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S.Nos. 150, 215 and 216 of 1992.2. O.S.No. 1397 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, was filed on 10.11.1987 by the appellants in the above Second appeals (hereinafter called 'appellants') for a declaration that they are entitled to receive rents from the defendants as and when they fall due and for a consequential injunction against the defendants. The suit property admittedly belongs M/s. Ganesar Ginning Company, the 11th defendant in the suit (hereinafter called 'Landlord/first respondent') and according to the appellants the property is a Ginning factory which was leased out to the third plaintiff-firm. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the partners of the firm and that defendants 1 to 10 are sub-tenants in possession of various portions and that the landlord was aware of the sub-tenancy and had also acquiesced for the last several years. The plaintiffs also conte...
State Bank of India and anr. Vs. Gulab Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas382(Mad); (1999)3MLJ539
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :The plaintiff was working as an executive officer of Pammal Town Panchayat. The said panchayat has a sub-treasury account payable at State Bank of India, Saidapet Branch at Nandanam. The cheque leaves are issued for operating the account of the panchayat by the treasury officer. Except cheques issued to third parties, the cheques for office administration used to be drawn in favour of self. The executive officer used to sign the cheque as 'drawer' with his seal on the reverse, and he will make two endorsements, one for discharge of cheque and another for attesting the signature of the person who used to draw the amount and such person will be the employee of the panchayat. A protection endorsement has to be made in red ink in the nearest rupee. In the course of employment of the plaintiff, as executive officer, a cheque was drawn ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Explosives Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR107(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the collection of deposits against sales tax four per cent. would not form part of the assessee's income and cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 ?'2. The assessee is a dealer in explosive detonators and safety fuses. It had collected four per cent. on the price of the goods as sales tax and paid the same to the Government. It collected a further four per cent. on the price of the goods as deposit against the sales tax and surcharge for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessee contended before the sales tax authority that the explosive detonators, and safety fuses sold by it were not chemicals and they were therefore to be subjected to lower rate of sales tax. Nevertheless, it proceeded to collect from the customers the entire ...
K. Natarajan Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR660(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This petition is by the legal representative of one Marimuthu Reddiaf, who was the original assessee and a defaulter. Marimuthu Reddiar has three sons. They are (1) Natarajan, (2) Arunachalam, and (3) Shanmugam. There were arrears of income-tax against the said Marimuthu Reddiar and, therefore, the Department proceeded for recovery of the arrears by resorting to the sale of the immovable property of the defaulter and issued an order of attachment on January 8, 1985. This attachment order was against Marimuthu Reddiar alone. The property which is described as attached is as follows : 'dwelling house at Thalatheru, Karaikal.' 2. Nothing happened thereafter till August 19, 1989, when for the first time the Department sent a notice for settling the sale proclamation to the defaulter, Marimuthu Reddiar. On the basis of this notice, however, the present petitioner Natarajan and probably his brother also, viz., Arunachalam, woke up and sent a communication dated October ...
Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ709Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, P. B. No. 588, W. B. Road, Tiruchirapalli-620008, the respondent herein in his order No. TN/ 217/ ENF/SRO-TRY/90, dated October 11, 1990, and to quash the same. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have stated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow their writ petition. Per contra, the respondent has filed a counter rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the count...
Dr. Lakshmanan Prakash Vs. the State Rep. by Its Inspector of Police ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1204; 1999CriLJ2348; 1999(2)CTC29
ORDER1. Dr. L. Prakash, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No. 3711 of 1998 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., has approached this Court with this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. The accusation contained in the charge sheet against Al to A3 is as follows:'On 24.5.1997 at about 12.00 hours at Padmini Nursing Home situated at Pachayappas College Hostel Road, Chennai. Dr. Parthasarathy (A1), Dr. Rajagopal (A2) and Dr. L. Prakash (A3) acted in a rash and negligent manner in conducting the operation on the person by name Jayakumar for his fractured injuries sustained on his right leg in a road accident, the first accused Dr. Parthasarathy being the Anaesthetist, the second accused Dr. Rajagopal and the third accused Dr.L. Prakash being in charge of the operation fixed for the patient, during which process the second accused abruptly left the operation theatre ...