Chennai Court February 2001 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.
Royal Consultants (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chief Enforcement Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2464
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Royal Consultants Private Limited, Bombay and William Masceranhas, its Director are the accused 2 and 3 in the private complaint filed by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras in E.O.C.C. No. 15 of 1996 taken on file in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.0.1, Egmore, Madras, against three accused including the petitioners for the offences under Sections 9(1)(f)(i), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the said Act.2. On service of summons, the petitioners (A2 and A3) appeared before the Court and filed an application raising a preliminary objection under Section 201, Cr.P.C. contending that the Court at Madras had no territorial jurisdiction to try in so far as it relates to the petitioners and requesting the Court to return the private complaint to the respondent for presentation before the proper Forum, namely the Court at Bombay. The said app...
Gnanasambandam S. Vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1236Mad; (2001)2MLJ140
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In W.P. No. 17494 of 2000 the petitioner has challenged the order of the 2nd respondent enquiry officer denying the assistance of a lawyer to the petitioner recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated October 4, 2000 held in respect of charge memo bearing No. 4027/A1/2000, dated April 20, 2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to give the petitioner assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry. 2. In W.P. No. 1253 of 2001 the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent enquiry officer recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated January 19, 2001 held in respect of charge memo dated bearing No. 4027/A1/2000, dated April 20, 2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry only after affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine management witnesses. 3. Since the parties to both the writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involv...
N. Sujatha Vs. K. Nagaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC288
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioner/wife has preferred the revision aggrieved against the dismissal of M.C. No. 33 of 1995 by the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore dated 9.7.1997.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent claiming maintenance. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent took place on 16.4.1992 in the presence of relations and friends at 'Sakthi Vinayagar Temple' at Coimbatore Collectorate. According to her, both of them were lovers prior to the marriage and with the consent of both families, the marriage was performed. After the marriage she lived in the house of the respondent for 30 days and on 20.5.1992, without any reason, she was ill-treated and sent out of the house and, as such, she is now residing with her parents. She has no income to maintain herself. The respondent is employed in the Transport Corporation. There is alr...
State, Dy. Chief Controller of I. and E. Vs. V.R. Parekh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT549(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the State by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras represented by the Public Prosecutor against the judgment of acquittal, dated 29-1-1990 in E.O.C.C. No. 829 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is : The Madura Coats Private Limited, Madras is a registered company dealing in the manufacture of readymade garments and embroidery threads and are exporting the same to other countries. To give an incentive, the said company was permitted to import any goods other than the one in Appendix-VI which are banned items. In the year 1979, the said company submitted applications to import certain items of goods. However, the said applications have been rejected on technical grounds. Exs. P.2 to P. 161 are the applications submitted by the said company for the licence and the connected correspondence. Thereafter, the Madura Coats ...
B.V. Srinivasan Vs. B.V. Tulasiraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ702
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. First defendant is the appellant.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The genealogy of the family is as follows: Subbiah BhagavatharVenkatachalapathy Krishnasamy Chakrapani (heirs not mentioned) Ramamurthy (adopted son)1st wife 2nd wife Kamakshi Govindaraju Srinivasan Thulisiraman D1 (Plaintiff)Rajaraman Ramamurthy (goes in adoption)Originally the suit property was owned by one Subbiah Bhagavathar. The three branches of Subbiah Bhagavathar entered into a registered partition deed on 14.11.1957 dividing the two houses in T.S.1865 and T.S.1864, Sivarayar Garden III Street, M. Chavadi, Thanjavur. The suit is related to the properties viz. A2 schedule property which was obtained by the father of the plaintiff and first defendant and B schedule property which was obtained by the plaintiff and the defendant...
N. Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad261; (2001)2MLJ77
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Appellant/petitioner is a freedom fighter. He challenges the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing his writ petition. In that writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15-12-1999 whereby, the 2nd respondent had decided that the L. P. G. Distributorship should continue to run by the petitioner along with Smt. Krishnakumari as his partner and that it is only when they approach the Indian Oil Corporation as a partnership, the suspension of their distributorship would be revoked and the supplies would be resumed. There is a short factual background to this order. 2. Petitioner admittedly being a freedom fighter was awarded the L. P. G. Distributorship under 'freedom fighters' quota and he commenced his business at Nagercoil during December, 1995 under the name and style of 'Gopalakrishna Gas Service'. He found it slightly difficult to run his business alone. Therefore, he took his grand-daughter Smt. B. ...
Thirisoolam Anna Harijan Blue Metalworks Labour Contract Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad306
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 1-7-1999, passed in W.P. No. 14482 of 1986.2. The grievance of the appellant is that the members of the appellant-Society were quarrying only as per the interim order of this Court dated 5-12-1996, and therefore, they are not liable to pay the lease amount or seigniorage fee for the period during which the interim order was in force, as directed by the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the materials on record. It is settled that any interim order passed is merged with the final order. Once, the writ petition is dismissed, one cannot take advantage of the interim order, unless otherwise, specifically directed in the final order. In the instant case, the lease in question was granted on 8-4-1993, for the period up to 7-4-1996 for three years. The appellant moved application, after the expiry of th...
Valli Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4815
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Tmt. Valli, P.W.2 in S.C. No. 214 of 1995 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur, has preferred the revision petition aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.7.1997.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner's family was residing in Natham poromboke near Alathur Government Hospital in 4 thatched houses for the past 30 years. They belong to Scheduled Caste. The accused except two belong to other community and they forced the petitioner and others to vacate the place. On 20.12.1993 at about 12.00 Noon, they attacked the houses and destroyed the houses and valuable articles were also missing. They escaped form the attack. The Inspector of Police, Pattukkottai laid a charge against the accused and they formed themselves as members of unlawful assembly with common object of destroying the dwelling houses of Vijayapandian and in furtherance of common object, caused damage to the dwelling houses and also threatened their life and they h...
Sailesh T. Bhansali Vs. Inspector of Plantations
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR907]; (2001)ILLJ1378Mad
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The common point that arises in all the O.P.s is whether the petitioner herein can be straight away prosecuted without obtaining sanction as required under Section 21 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.2. The undisputed facts are the petitioner is the Managing Director of Mahavir Plantations Limited, having its Tea Plantations in Cochin, Kerala and various parts of this State. The respondent who happens to be the Inspector of Plantations, Valparai, inspected the petitioner's plantation office records and found that there has been delay in the payment of wages relating to various periods. Therefore, the Inspector of Plantations, Valparai, straight-away proceeded to prosecute the petitioner for violation of Section 5(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, took cognizance of the matters in the various STC numbers as against which the petitioner has come forward with all these OPs. challenging the propriety of t...
D. Srinivasan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Mad)461; [2001]249ITR229(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner made under Section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest levied under Sections 159 and 217 of the Act for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, both years inclusive.2. The reasons given by the Commissioner in his own words are :'During the course of scrutiny of assessment for the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer found that there were credits to the extent of Rs. 1,89,000 and when the assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of these deposits, the assessee has filed revised returns, for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and for the first time for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88. Thus, it can be seen that these returns were not filed voluntarily, but only after the Assessing Officer started investigation of the case. As the disclosure made by the assessee was not voluntary, the interest cannot be waived und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »