Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Rajendran and ors. Vs. State Rep. by Acp (Law and Order)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC495
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The appellants challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. directing them to undergo R.1. for 3 years have filed this appeal.2. Originally, they were charge-sheeted and tried for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. The Trial Court, after considering the materials available on record, acquitted the appellants in respect of the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C.3. The case of the prosecution is this :(a) Rajendran, the first appellant herein, is the husband of the deceased Shanthi. The appellants 2 and 3 are the parents of the first appellant. On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got married to the first appellant Rajendran. Since there was torture at the hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi committed suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 a.m. by setting fire on her after pouring kerosene.(b) On the complaint of Ganesan (P.W.1)...
Tag this Judgment!Pethu Alias Petha Perumal Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2724
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Pethu alias Petha Perumal has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 128 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court for S.C. & S.T. Act, Madurai taken on file for the offences under 341, 294(b) read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant Porselvi; Panchayat Union Chairman, went to her village on 18-2-1999 and when she was about to leave her house by getting into her jeep, the petitioner/accused came near her and shouted at her in filthy language and scolded her using her caste name. The first informant came to the Devakottai Police Station and gave a complaint. This was registered in Crime No. 25 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 341 and 294(b), IPC. Subsequently, on 6-3-1999, the Deputy Superintendent took up investigation and after finishing further investigation, filed the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kuppammal and ors. Vs. T.R. Nataraja Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ326
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree for possession in O.S.No. 1206 of 1983, against one Kanakavalliammal whose legal representatives are the petitioners. The suit was decreed. The appeal was allowed. Against that, the respondent filed the second appeal before this Court which was allowed confirming the decree of the trial Court. The petitioners' predecessor moved the Supreme Court and her special leave was rejected on 21.1.1993. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No. 1899 of 1993. During the pendency of the execution petition, the judgment-debtor died. Thereafter, the present petitioners were brought on record as her legal representatives. They filed an application under Section 47, C.P.C. which was rejected, against which the present C.R.P. has been filed.2. Mr. A.L. Namasivayam, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a case where an illegal decree was sought to be executed. The respondent purchased this property in an auction under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, 8, Esplanade Road, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ81
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. The Insurance Company/respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.C.O.R No.3761 of 1998) is the appellant inC.M.A.No.1640 of 2000 and third respondent in C.M.A.No.2 of 2001 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.2. The motor accident claim arises under the following circumstances:The first claimant's husband, deceased Shanthilal, while travelling in a car bearing Regn. No.TN-20-3015 from Chennai to Arcot on 14.12.1997 at 9.45 a.m., was involved in a head-on collision with a lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-1-GB-3060 near Kancheepuram. Shri Shanthilal and another passenger of the car along with the driver died on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased Shanthilal as claimants 1 to 4 have filed O.P.No.3761 of 1998 claiming a compensation of Rs.76,00,000. The Tribunal granted an award of Rs.23,64,000. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company, who have obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.P. Rajah (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR180(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has held that the Revenue could not have adopted the higher valuation for one of the properties owned by the assessee which is a coffee curing works and which had been valued by the Valuing Officer at over Rs. 47.88 lakhs, on the ground that the value of that property at the lower figure of Rs. 12.68 lakhs had been approved by the Commissioner, in the assessee's appeal which had been filed against the order of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1982-83. 2. The relevant part of the Commissioner's order on which the Tribunal relied to reach that conclusion reads as under : 'The increase in value of other properties is reasonable and I am aware of the characteristics of these properties, I confirm the addition.' 3. In appeal, the assessee had questioned the valuation of two of the other properties. The Commissioner rejected the claim for exemption under Section 7(4) in respect of one of the properties. The assessee had ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Radiators Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR829(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee contributed a sum of Rs. 99,000 to the gratuity fund for the assessment year 1978-79. No details regarding the manner in which that amount was calculated and whether it is the liability of that year were furnished. The Assessing Officer, after noticing that no details had been furnished, disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that having regard to the large sum, it could be reasonably inferred that it includes not only the incremental liability of the year but of the earlier years as well. He, however, permitted the assessee to furnish a break-up and observed that the amount relatable to the assessment year would be allowed thereafter. The Commissioner disagreed with that view of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner's view has been upheld by the Tribunal. 2. The amount that could be contributed to the gratuity fund in respect of which deduction can be claimed is the amount of the incremental liability for that year. The incremental...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Sadayappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR203(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us arise out of the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee had disclosed the purchase of a site for a consideration of Rs. 25,000. He subsequently admitted the fact that the real consideration was much more : Nevertheless, the Tribunal has chosen to hold that there were no concealment. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be approved. The assessee cannot make a false declaration knowing the real facts and thereafter when confronted with the facts after a raid and seizure, admit those facts and claim that such the subsequent admission takes away the effect of the wrongful conduct earlier displayed. The assessee is liable for penalty. The Tribunal was in error in setting aside the penalty. 2. As regards the other question about the correctness of the Tribunal's findings that a sum of Rs. 18,750 did not represent the concealed income of the assessee, the Tribunal has considered all the materials placed before it be...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. M.S.P. Rajah (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR180(Mad)
R. Jayasi Babu, J. The Tribunal has held that the revenue could not have adopted the higher valuation for one of the properties owned by the assessee which is a coffee curing works and which had been valued by the Valuing Officer at over Rs. 47.88 lakhs, on the ground that the value of that property at the lower figure of Rs. 12.68 lakhs had been approved by the Commissioner, in the assessee's appeal which had been filed against the order of assessment under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1982-83.The relevant part of the Commissioner's order on which the Tribunal relied to reach that conclusion reads as under :'The increase in value of other properties is reasonable and I am aware of the characteristics of these properties, I confirm the addition.'In appeal, the assessee had questioned the valuation of two of the other properties. The Commissioner rejected the claim for exemption under section 7(4) in respect of one of the properties. The assessee had not questioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. R. Sadayappan (Decd.) (by Lrs.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR203(Mad)
R. Jayasi Babu, J. The questions referred to us arise out of the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee had disclosed the purchase of a site for a consideration of Rs. 25,000. He subsequently admitted the fact that the real consideration was much more : Nevertheless, the Tribunal has chosen to hold that there were no concealment. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be approved. The assessee cannot make a false declaration knowing the real facts and thereafter when confronted with the facts after a raid and seizure, admit those facts and claim that such the subsequent admission takes away the effect of the wrongful conduct earlier displayed. The assessee is liable for penalty. The Tribunal was in error in setting aside the penalty.As regards the other question about the correctness of the Tribunal's findings that a sum of Rs. 18,750 did not represent the concealed income of the assessee, the Tribunal has considered all the materials placed before it before holdi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn) Department, Madras 34 Vs. N.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ211
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. A sangam, registered under the Societies Registration Act has been carrying on and administering certain 'Urchavams' and 'ubayams' (Charities) and whether those charities, would come within the ambit of 'Religious endowment' has fallen for consideration in this appeal.2. People belong to Vanika Vaisya community of Mannachanallur have formed a sangam and named it as 'Mannchanallur Vanika Vaisya Sangam' (hereinafter called as 'the Sangam') and registered the same under theSocieties Registration Act. The said sangam was represented by their President and Secretary, who have filed the suit under Section 70(1)(ii) of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act (Act 22 of 1959) read with Order 7, Rule 1, C.P.C. in O.S.No.620 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Madras dated 19.2.1980 in A.P.No.58 of 1977 and also prayed for a declaratio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »