Chennai Court March 2001 Judgments
Saraswathi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1420
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam J.1. The petitioners are the mother and the son. They filed this petition praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 148 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, taken on file for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution, on 18-8-1999 at about 7.00 a.m., when the first informant Nachimuthu was working in the garden belonged to P.K.N. Murthy, the first petitioner Saraswathi, the wife of Thangavelu and the second petitioner Senthi Kumar, son of the said Thangavelu, who is the neighbouring land owner, came to the garden and asked him not to work in the field, as the said garden was belonged to them and without their knowledge, P.K.N. Murthy purchased the same and in retaliation, the first informant said that he would act only according to the instruction given by his employer P.K.N. Murthy and therefore, both the petitioners abused him stating that if he did not go out of the garden, they wou...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Mahal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Mad)228; [2001]250ITR333(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by a notice dated September 8, 2000, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, intimating that a part of the income assessable for the year 1999-2000 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act and calling upon the assessee to file a return in the prescribed form for that assessment year. The assessee had filed a return for that year on September 30, 1999, for which an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act had been sent to it on October 15, 1999. In the return it had shown the cost of the construction put up by it as Rs. 92.12 lakhs.2. On the very day on which the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was sent, namely, on October 15, 1999, the Assessing Officer had noticed the discrepancy in the cost of the construction as estimated by thevaluer and as noted in the account books of the assessee and had sought a valuation report from the Departmental valuer.3. The report whic...
Tag this Judgment!NoorudIn Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR357(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Rule 68B in Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced with effect from June 1, 1992, is imperative, and specifies the exact period available to the Revenue, to hold the sale of property attached for recovery of arrears of tax, interest, fine/penalty or any other sum ; the period by which it may be extended ; the period which is to beexcluded white computing the period specified in Sub-rule (1), and also sets out the consequence of not holding the sale within the period allowed by the rule.2. The consequence is that whatever might have happened or might have been done by an assessee or by the Revenue, if the sale is not held within the period specified in Rule 68B, after excluding the period specified in Rule 68B(2), the sale cannot be held after the expiry of that period of limitation specified therein and any order of attachment that might have been issued shall be deemed to have been vacated.3. Tax Recovery Officers are, therefore, required to be ex...
Tag this Judgment!Nithiya Kalyani Timbers Vs. Board of Trustees of Madras Port
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT24(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The plaintiffs have come forward with the instant Appeal.2. The brief facts are : The second and third plaintiffs are the partners in the first plaintiff, Nithiya Kalyani Timbers. The appellants/plaintiffs imported about 352 logs of wood from Andamans through merchant ship M.V. Kamakshi. The cargo reached Madras on 1-7-1979. All the amounts due to the Port Trust had been cleared. It was considered to be coastal cargo. The cargo was unloaded from the ship and kept in Jawahar Dock-4 and various places. The Port authorities allowed three free-days time for removal of the consignment. The consignment was such that it could be loaded only in trailers and removed from the Port area. There was a strike by the trailer workmen, due to which, the cargo could not be immediately removed. The strike went on for twenty one days. The striking trailer workmen did not allow any one to enter the area to clear that goods. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs could remove the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sv. Lakshmanan, 33, a/2, Ramleela Apartments, 3rd St, Abhiramapuram, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ175
ORDER1. The applicant is the auction purchaser of the property bearing No.64, Dr. Rengachari Road, Chennai-600018 in the auction held on 6.11.2000 by the court. He was the successful bidder in the auction. He purchased the property for a sum of Rs.45,01,001 and he has deposited a sum of Rs.11,23,250.25 being the 25% of the bid amount on the very same day. He was given 15 days time for paying the balance which ended on 21.11.2000. It is stated that due to the delay in realisation of the sale proceeds of a property situate in Malaysia and he told that he could remit the amount only in instalments and he wanted to pay the amount in Application No.4924 of 2000 before the Master to pay the balance of 75%. On 4.12.2000, when the matter came before the Master, he has passed the following order:' Since the balance purchase money is not paid within the stipulated time of 15 days, the application is dismissed.'Hence he filed two applications, one to set aside the order passed by the Master and a...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Periasamy @ Perianna Gounder Vs. D. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad410; (2001)2MLJ235
ORDER1. The revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing the petition seeking permission to examine the first defendant as a witness on the side of the petitioner who is the plaintiff.2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.198 of 1999 before the District Munsif, Erode for declaring the right of the plaintiff to take water from the suit wells and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his rights and for other reliefs.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to take water from the suit wells. All the parties are related. The respondent herein is the fourth defendant. When the petitioner applied to the P.W.D. and Revenue Department for their permission to lay a pipe-line through me Poramboke lands, he got the consent of the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, the respondent herein also gave an oral consent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 9 have no objection to his taking water from the suit wells. ...
Tag this Judgment!Scientific Compounds and Processes Private Limited and anr. Vs. Hanuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC249(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J. 1. Application Nos. 1030, 1031 and 1032 of 2000 have been filed for (1) interim injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the applicants' registered Trade Mark, 'SABENA' by use of Trade Mark 'SUBEENA'; (2) for'interim injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the applicants' artistic work, 'SABENA' on the polythene pouches by use of 'SUBEENA' on the polythene pouches; (3) and for interim injunction restraining the respondent from 'passing off the good goods of the respondent respectively.2. The case of the applicants is that the second plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff has authorised the second plaintiff to manufacture and sell cleaning powder under the trade mark, 'SABENA'. The first plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark, 'SABENA' and it has been registered duly on 1st August 1990 under Registration No. 534459 in Clause-3 in respect of cleaning preparation. The Trade Mark was reg...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Ranganathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(77)ECC195; 2001(131)ELT321(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the reward to the petitioner, as per Circular No. F. No. R. 13011/5/88 Ad. V., dated 7-6-1988.2. The petitioner claims that he was a registered informer of the Customs Department; that in April, 1991, he came to know about a smuggling activity to smuggle 99 silver bars into India from Singapore; that as per the information he received, the smuggled goods were likely to be off-loaded near Tuticorin Port; that he was able to get the information about the method to be adopted by the persons concerned to smuggle the contraband into India; that after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the information, he met the 8th respondent on 7-4-1991 and informed him that 99 silver bars are likely to be smuggled into India by a vessel called 'AL-KARA' near Tuticorin Port or its outer anchorage; that the 8th respondent took him to the 7th respondent, who recorded his det...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sarvaraya Textiles Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director, S.B.P.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas256(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are accused No. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.8417 of 1999 pending on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. They seek to quash the proceedings pending against them for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant/respondent is a public limited company and a non-banking financial institution and carrying on business in extending financial facility to its customers. The first accused entered into a lease agreement with the complainant on 24.3.92 for Rs.66,61,267, but committed default in payment of lease rentals. Later on, at the request of the first accused sarvaraya Textiles Limited, the said lease facility was converted into a bill discounting facility and an agreement for bill discounting facility was entered into betweenthe complainant and the first accused on 30.11.1994 for Rs. 1,20,00,000 and adjusted the said amount towards the amount due under the lease agreement.3. Since the first accused committed d...
Tag this Judgment!Thoppa Naicker Vs. Tmt. Chinnammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ266
ORDER1. The substantial question of law raised in this second appeal is with reference to the interpretation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in and by which, any right of a female Hindu, who possessed any property acquired either before or after the commencement of the Act, should be held to be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.2. In the case on hand, the respondents herein who are the wife and daughter of the deceased Andi Naicker came forward with the suit for partition as against the appellant who is none other than the younger brother ofthe said Audi Naicker, in respect of 11 items of suit schedule properties said to have been owned by the joint family of the appellant along with the deceased Andi Naicker. The said Andi Naicker is stated to have expired on 20.8.1952. Out of 11 items of the properties, in respect of item No.9, it is conceded by the respondents herein that the same is the exclusive property of the Appellant's daughter and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »