Chennai Court March 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.
R. Nanjan Vs. Sri Krishna Electricals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas497(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 158 of) 998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3792 of 1998; dated February 24, 1999.2. The case in brief is as follows : The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 158 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act'). The petitioner/ accused filed a petition under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code to drop the proceedings against him as there is no prima facie case against him. The complainant has been examined and the evidence has not improved the case. Exhibit P-1, the cheque dated January 27, 1998, was not issued by the accused. The said cheque was issued by Neelamalai Chits Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, in which the petitioner is a Director. According to the complaint and sworn statement as well as the evidence of PW-1, the company has no...
Baskar Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3426
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner/Accused in S.C. No. 26 of 1998 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam has preferred the revision. Aggrieved against the orders passed in Cri. M.P. No. 217 of 1999 dated 1-4-1999.2. The case in Brief is as follows :The Additional Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code that PWs 1, 5 and 13 have implicated the father of the accused and also Selvaraj and Mani, who are the brothers of the accused. All the three of them have not been arrayed as accused. The respondent accused filed a counter and opposed the application after hearing the parties, The learned Judge allowed the application and aggrieved against this the present revision is filed.3. Heard the learned counsel of both sides.4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct ?5. Point, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a Memo under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Cod...
Kaliammal Vs. V. Subramaninan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ56
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Revenue Court, Trichi, made in R.P.No.1 of 1997 dated 30.7.1998, dismissing the restoration application filed under section 7 of Act 20 of 1997.2. The crucial questions involved in this revision petition is as to whether the revenue Court was justified in going into the questions as to whether the petitioner is a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and assuming the Revenue Court was justified in doing that exercise, whether the petitioner was givenadequate opportunity to substantiate her claim that she would satisfy the definitions of cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Act.3. The facts to be briefly stated are: that the lands on question originally belonged to one Meenakshi Ammal; that the mother of the petitioner Tmt. Karupayee was a cultivating tenant under the said Tmt. Meenkashi Ammal; that an application for eviction on the ground of non...
S. Balasubramanian rep. by Power of Attorney Agent Gomathinayagam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ529; 2001(2)CTC519
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. The claimant as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the common judgment rendered under the Land Acquisition Act, have filed the above appeals.2. An extent of 11.38.0 hectares of dry lauds in Survey No.918/3 Part etc. of Mutliur Village, Palayankottai Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District were acquired for the formation of a new Water Tank. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 30.5.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, by Award No. 1 of 1993 dated 30.4.1993, determined the compensation for the various claimants. The lands in question that were acquired are confined to 2.23.0 hectares in S.No.926/1 etc. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, one Thiru Gomathinayagam, General Power of Attorney of the claimant S. Balasubramanian is said to have given a statement on his behalf stating that he has no objection to the proposed acquisition, but requested to make early pay...
Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. K.T. Kunjumon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR479(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Following are the reasons in support of our order passed on March 1, 2001, dismissing the above writ appeals, in the open court.2. This judgment will govern W. A. Nos. 1021 and 1022 of 2000. Two writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common order, they being W. P. Nos. 1424 and 1425 of 1999 (see : [1999]239ITR782(Mad) ). In W. P, No. 1425 of 1999, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated November 18, 1998, is challenged and the further direction is sought to the Commissioner of Income-tax to redeposit the sum of Rs. 24,25,810 in the P. D. account of the respondent to the credit of the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-95, while in W. P. No. 1424 of 1999 the order dated January 12, 1999 in C. No. Act No. 0022/KVSS/C1 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Chennai, is challenged and the further prayer is for the quashing of the order and for a direction to the Commissioner of Income-tax to admit and accept the declaration file...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.S.P. Nadar Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR170(Mad)
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. The above tax cases are filed by the Department against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Madras, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 1103 and 1104/Mds. of 1993, dated March 31, 1999, dismissing the appeals filed by the Department. 2. Learned standing counsel for the Department submits that the following question of law is involved in these tax cases ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the maximum rate as provided under Section 21A would apply only if the net wealth itself exceeds the taxable limit as provided under the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 3. We have heard learned standing counsel, and perused the materials on record. On a consideration, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in these tax cases. That apart, the controversy had already been set at rest by this court in Haresh Anitha Trust v. CWT : [1988]173ITR103(Mad) , which hasnot been d...
K.V. Rajendran Vs. the Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4092
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The content of Article 21 of our Constitution, read in the light of Article 19, is similarly elevating. But romance about, human rights and rhetoric about constitutional mandates lose credibility if, in practice, the protectors of law and minions of the State become engines of terror and panic people into fear. We are constrained to make these observations as our conscience is in consternation when we read the facts of the case which have given rise to the order challenged before us in this petition.2. I am reminded of the above observation made by Justice Krishna Iyer, while I go through the facts of this case which are so shocking.3. K.V. Rajendran, a Senior Lecturer In Physics Department in the Presidency College, Chennai has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking for a direction to the ...
Adwise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT529(Mad); (2001)2MLJ366; 2006[2]STR375; [2007]6STT358
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful petitioner, whose petition challenging the Letter No. 341/43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-1996, issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise, New Delhi, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The letter, which is in the nature of 'departmental instructions', is challenged only insofar as a part thereof is concerned. That part declares that while the amounts paid by the 'Advertising Agency' for space and time in getting the advertisements published in the print media like Newspapers, Magazines, Journals, etc. or, the electronic media like, Doordarshan, All India Radio, Private Channels, etc. Will not be includible in the value of the taxable service for the purpose of levy of 'Service Tax', however, the commission received by the Advertising Agency from the print media or from the electronic media, as the case may be, would be includible in the value of the taxable service.2. The main assault against this letter was that firstly, i...
Ramasamy Vs. Y. Ranganayaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ840
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Dead men tell no tales, it is said, but in this case a dead man did. The respondent 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 1973 of 1996 against the third respondent herein and four others for bare injunction in respect of 49 cents of land bounded on the south by Ponnamallee High Road, east and north by Tamarai Kulam and West by their own land. Notice was ordered and the first defendant in the said suit who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein stated that the defendants were in possession of 16 cents out of 49 cents and that as early as 1977, the Revenue Department had issued a notice to them under Section 7 of the Act 3 of 1905. The same 16 cents of the land is the subject matter of a second suit out of which this revision arises. According to the third respondent survey No. 149 which is adjacent to survey No. 150 belongs to him and the said 16 cents is the only way from the main road to the property in Survey No. 149. It was stated in the counter that if...
Cwt Vs. M.S.P. Nadar Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR170(Mad)
N. K. Jain, C. J. The above tax cases are filed by the department against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Madras, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 1103 and 1104/Mds. of 1993, dated 31-3-1999, dismissing the appeals filed by the department.Learned standing counsel for the department submits that the following question of law is involved in these tax cases ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the maximum rate as provided under section 21A would apply only if the net wealth itself exceeds the taxable limit as provided under the Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'We have heard learned standing counsel, and perused the materials on record. On a consideration, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in these tax cases. That apart, the controversy had already been set at rest by this court in Haresh Anitha Trust v. CWT : [1988]173ITR103(Mad) , which has not been disputed by lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›