Chennai Court June 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.
Abdul Kareem and ors. Vs. Mohammed Farook and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3869
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999 have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction under Section 500, I.P.C. and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, Imposed upon them in C.C. No. 841 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Thanjavur which were confirmed in Cri. R.P. No. 14 of 1998 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and acquit them.2. The first respondent in the above petition, on whose complaint the conviction and the sentence were imposed upon the petitioners, has filed a revision in Cri. R.C. No. 1134 of 1998 praying for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioners.3. Since both these matters would arise out of a single case, a common order is being passed.4. A private complaint was filed by Mohammed Farook against the petitioners in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999 for the offence under Section ...
Bundy Tubing of India Ltd Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR286(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.,For the assessment year 1977-78, the Commissioner exercised revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in his opinion interests of the revenue had been prejudiced by the order of the Income Tax Officer, allowing development rebate at the rate of amount of 25 per cent of the investment. The Commissioner was of the view that such an allowance was at a rate higher than that at which could have been made. It had been found that installation of machinery for commencement of the manufacturing process prior to 30-6-1975, had not been established by the assessee satisfactorily before the Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner, therefore, directed the Income Tax Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to place further materials and thereafter to decide the question as to whether the development rebate at a higher rate could be claimed by the assessee.The assessee, on appeal before the Tribunal, contended that the Commissioner should have acc...
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (A) Department Vs. C. Nalla Sivam Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ269
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above appeal suits in A.S.No. 960 of 1987 and A.S.No. 654 of 1988 have arisen out of the common judgment and decree dated 25.6.1986 rendered in O.S.Nos. 36 of 1985 and 37 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. Since, according to the lower Court, both the cases are interconnected in the sense that they pertain to one and the same organisation and the stand taken in both the cases being similar to each other by one and the same party, the common judgment has been passed by the lower Court.2. On a perusal of the pleadings of the plaint and the connected materials placed on record, in the endeavour of tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the respondent individual one Nalla Sivan Pillai has filed two O.As. No. 7 and 10 of 1983, the first under Section 63(b) and the second one under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively praying ...
Amarchand Vs. Sanjeev Rastogi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3815
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The complainant in C.C. No. 77 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, challenges the order of acquittal passed by the said Magistrate against the respondent/accused, by invoking Section 256, Cr.P.C.2. Though notice, was issued to the respondent, he has not chosen to be represented by a counsel not is he present in Court to contest the appeal.3. The proceedings against the respondent were initiated by way of a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that the cheque issued by the respondent, when presented with the bankers, returned dishonoured, with an endorsement, ''Insufficiency of Funds', and the statutory notice issued subsequently also did not evoke any response.4. After the complaint was filed, notice was issued and the case was adjourned to 1-6-1993. A petition was received from the respondent requesting further time for his appearance, The appellant/complainant tho...
Nalli Textiles by Proprietor N.C. Ramasamy Chettiar Vs. Minor Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ512
C. Nagappan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, passed in O.S.No. 613 of 1986 on 5.9.1988. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. The averments in the plaint are summarised as follows.The suit property originally belonged to Venkatarama Chettiar, the grand-father of the plaintiff, who sold it to T.R. Sundaram, who in turn sold the same to M.R. Radha for valuable consideration on 2.4.1962. M.R. Radha, who was acting in a number of Tamil films, purchased the property from and out of his own earning. M.R. Radha conveyed the property to his son Minor Ravi by means of a registered deed of gift on 15.6.1962. Subsequently, Ravi sold the suit property to Rangaiah Chettiar for Rs. 40,000 by registered sale deed, dated 9.2.1972. After the purchase, Rangaiah Chettiar was enjoying the suit property and he had no male issue. His wife Padmalochani had left him and living separately. They had a daughter Hamsaveni, who is a lunatic.R...
M. Palanisamy and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3892
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Palanisamy, the first appellant, was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Natarajan, the second appellants was convicted for the offences under Sections 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six moriths and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 12 of the Act and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.3. Challenging the above convictions and sentences, the appellants preferred this common appeal.4. The case...
A. Kanagasabapathy and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4036
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Kanagasabapathy, the first petitioner is the Executive Secretary of Tamil Nadu Sarvodaya Mandal, Ranganathan, the second petitioner is the District Co-ordinator of the Mandal in Vellore District.2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Vellore, the respondent herein filed a charge-sheet against both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 409, I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners who were entrusted with the work of digging and constructing irrigation wells in Vellore District, misappropriated certain amount while executing the said work under the Jeevan Dhara Million Wells Scheme. Seeking for quashing of the above proceedings, the petitioners/accused have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.3. The crux of the accusation as mentioned in the charge-sheet is summarised as below :--The Government of Tamil Nadu under the Jawahar Velai Vaippu Thittam executed a scheme called Jeevan Dhara Millian Well Scheme introdu...
Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT58(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to quash the proceedings of the Director General of Health Services and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the said proceedings.2. The petitioner hospital imported certain life saving medical equipments for the purpose of installing the same at their hospital to provide the latest medical facilities to the patients. Such imports were made by the petitioner taking advantage of the Customs Notification No. 64/88 dated 1-3-88 which granted the benefit of the Customs Duty exemption in respect of those equipments. As per the above notification, in order to claim the benefit of the exemption of Customs duty, the procedure prescribed by the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi is that the hospital should apply through the State Government and the Director of Medical Education of the State Government has to inspect the hospital and satisfy himself with regard ^ to the compliance of the par...
Jainalabudeen Vs. Kathija Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ247
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 rendered in O.S.No. 93 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, wherein in the suit filed for maintenance by the respondents herein as the plaintiffs claiming maintenance of Rs. 500 in favour of the first plaintiff and Rs. 300 in favour of each of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, the lower Court has passed a decree granting a total monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 450 in favour of the plaintiffs and a further amount of Rs. 16,200 as past maintenance besides making provision to adjust the amount of Rs. 15,000 already deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank by the defendant and the amount ordered as per the order made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.M.P.No. 52 of 1981 and further directing the defendant to bear the Court fees and parties to bear their respective costs.2. Tracing the history of the case as pleaded in the plaint, the first plaintiff has submitted that t...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.K. Avadai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR190(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The common question referred is required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Viji v. CGT : [1998]229ITR421(SC) , wherein, in a case arising under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, it has been held that it is the latest published balance-sheet available on the concerned valuation date that should be taken note of for working out the value of the shares and not the subsequent balance-sheets finalised after the valuation date.2. The assessee is no more. It is, however, unnecessary to issue notice to the legal representatives even though an application to bring them on record has been filed as the result of this petition being in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to postpone the disposal of these cases and, therefore, these cases are disposed of by this order.3. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »