Chennai Court September 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.
Natarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)341; 2000CriLJ1045
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Referred Trial No. 1 of 1999 is a reference by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for confirmation under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code of the death sentence passed against the accused Natarajan. He has been awarded the sentence of death as the Sessions Judge, Tuticorin has found him guilty of the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts as also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts. Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1999 has been filed by the accused against the finding of the conviction.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution story is as under:-- The accused Natarajan is a resident of South Karasery where he was living with his family. About six months prior to 4-3-1995, his mother-in-law Gomathiammal was residing with the accused. Adjacent to the house of the accused in the village, is the house of PW-1 Madathiammal, who was running a petty shop in the said house and her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal also were residi...
J. Prem and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ619
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petitioners in these revision petitions are husband and wife and they are accused 1 and 2 in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magis-trate-Cum-Additional District Judge, Cuddallore. They have filed one petition for discharge in Cri. M. P. No. 289 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 5-3-99 and aggrieved against this, the first accused had filed Cri. R. C. 563/99 and the second accused had filed Cri. R.C.No. 349/ 99.2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the revision petitions is as follows :The first accused has been charged for an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and the second accused was charged for offences under Section 109, IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(3) of the said Act. The first accused became a Member of Legislative Assembly on 17-6-91 and he became the Minister on 17-5-93. He p...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Rani Alias Eliyarani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3090
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner/husband has filed the revision aggrieved against the order passed in CRP No. 87/97 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, reversing the order dated 31-5-1994 in M.C. No. 8/94 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate IV Salem.2. The case in brief is as follows :-The respondent was the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between them took place on 12-11-1978. The respondent is only his sister's daughter. Within six months of the marriage, she developed illicit intimacy with one Jayaraman. Thereafter divorce was effected on 1-2-1997 according to the caste custom prevailing in the community. The petitioner contracted second marriage in 1987 and he is having two children through the second wife. After the divorce on 1-2-1987 the respondent openly lived with the said Jayaraman till 1994 and thereafter, he also abandoned her, since the respondent is leading an adulterous life. She is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitio...
K. Subramaniam Vs. A. Kandaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC400
ORDER1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed a suit for-partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who are three in number. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, granting the plaintiff a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession. The 3rd defendant aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal to the sub-Court. Tirupur, in A.S. No, 34 of 1986, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed by the sub-Judge, who dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal by the 3rd defendant.2. At the time when the second appeal was admitted the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-(i) Whether the suit for partition by the purchaser from the Official Receiver is maintainable when the settlement deed is in favour of the appellant which was long prior in point of time ie., before filing the insolvency petition and withou...
Arulmighu Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam by Its Executive Officer, Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC534
ORDER1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the sub-Judge and hence the 1st defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The property belongs to the 1st defendant is admitted in emphatic terms by the plaintiff, when examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 also admit that the suit property belongs to the 1st defendant temple viz, the appellant. The documents produced in this case, which have been marked as Exs.A1, A3 and A4 to A32 would all go to show that the plaintiffs have accepted the title of the temple to the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants of the suit property under the 1 st defendant. They have paid rent to the temple, accepting the temple's title to the suit property. It is the case that the suit property was settled upon the temple by theplaintiffs grand father. But, it is not established.3. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has...
Guruvammal and Another Vs. Subbiah Naicker and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC650
ORDER1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 135 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 104 of 1987. Theplaintiff in O.S.No. 350 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti is the appellant in S.A.No. 3 of 1989.2. The suit in O.S.No.135 of 1976 was filed by one Ramu Ammal against the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in respect of five items of properties. Pending suit she died and the present appellants who are respectively her daughter and grand daughter came on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 and pursued the suit. The case as set out in the plaint was as follows:The suit properties originally belonged to the first respondent herein, the first defendant in the suit and his brother late Krishnaswamy Naicker. The two were divided brothers, the deceased first plaintiff was their mother. Krishnaswamy Naicker died leaving his mother as his only legal heir. The suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnaswam...
TuticorIn Vegetable Marketing Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR202(Mad)
K. Sampath, J.1. The petitioner prays for a declaration that the provisions of Sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, null and void.2. The allegations necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows :The petitioner-company is liable to pay income-tax on the profit it makes from conducting a market and running a lodge. Under Section 207 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), every assessee is liable to pay advance tax in accordance with Sections 208 to 219. Before April 1, 1988, computation of advance tax excluded from the purview of the current income, capital gains and lotteries. However, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, made applicable from April 1, 1988, both these items were included in the computation of the current income for the purpose of payment of advance tax. There was a further amendment in 1989 coming into force on and from April 1, 1989, and a summary of the provisions r...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT332(Mad)
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a certiorari to call for the records of the respondents culminating in order No. 16/90 Order-in-Original (De novo) dated 28-5-1990 in C.No. V/18-E/13/153/77-PF of the third respondent and quash the said order.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, First Division, has held that under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the classification of the product cotton/nylon twisted yarn could be under Tariff Item 18-A (ii) of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 since repealed by Central Excise and Salt Act, 1985.3. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as under :The petitioner company has a composite mill at Madurai having spinning and weaving facilities. One of the products manufactured by the petitioner company in its above factory is cotton/nylon duck. After twisting the cotton and nylon yarn together, the cotton/nylon duck is woven. With a view to give more durability and strength, the cotto...
TuticorIn Vegetable Marketing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)79
ORDERK. Sampath, J:The petitioner prays for a declaration that the provisions of sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are unconstitutional, arbitrary, null and void.2. The allegations necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows :The petitioner company is liable to pay income-tax on the profit it makes from conducting a market and running a lodge. Under section 207 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), every assessee is liable to pay advance tax in accordance with sections 207 to 219. Before 1-4-1988 computation of advance tax excluded from the purview of the current income, capital gains and lotteries. However, by Direct Tax (Amendment) Act, 1987 made applicable from 1-4-1988 both these items were included in the computation of the current income for the purpose of payment of advance tax. There was a further amendment in 1989 coming into force on and from 1-4-1989 and a summary of the provisions relating to advance tax and th...
P. Alagarsamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary, Home Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC464
ORDER1. Alagarsamy, a member of the Scheduled Caste and a victim for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), having suffered by the alleged mala fide investigation made by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga, has tapped the doors of the highest court of this State requesting to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to correct the injustice done to him.2. The factual matrix, which are required for solving the controversy, could be summarised as follows:(a) Alagarsamy, the petitioner herein, is the resident of Keerani Village, Devakottai Taluk. He is an agriculturist. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He is also connected with the organisations which used to fight for the redressal of grievances of the members of Scheduled Caste by reporting to the authorities for proper reliefs. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »