Chennai Court September 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.
Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Hasheeda Begum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ715
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. These two writ appeals have been preferred against the very same order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.1994 made in W.P.No. 448 of 1992.2. W.A.No. 370 of 1995 has been preferred, by the requisitioning body. M/s. Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan represented by its Manager, for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired challenging the order quashing the Acquisition.3. W.A.No. 426 of 1995 has been preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and its Special Deputy Collector seeking to sustain the acquisition proceedings while praying the Division Bench to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition quashed the acquisition proceedings on the sole ground that the publication of Section 4(1) Notification in the Newspapers preceding the Gazette publication vitiates the acquisition by following the judgment in Rajagopal v. Government of Tamil Nadu . Being aggrieved the present writ appeals have been preferred.5....
T. Alamelu Ammal Vs. Mangalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ673
ORDER1. 1. An important question to be considered in this revision is, whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable when there is a delay in filing petition by the tenant under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, (in short 'the Act') after a period of one month as prescribed therein. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Munsif dated 15.2.1999 made in I.A.No.1168 of 1997 in O.S.No.722 of 1996, allowing the application filed under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the plaintiff therein has filed the present revision. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.722 of 1999 before the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore against the respondent/defendant, directing her to vacate and surrender possession of the suit property either with the superstructure and trees after receiving the compensation for the same. The defendant filed a written statement disputing various averments made in the plaint. Pending suit, the responde...
Manian Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC672
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Manian, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304-B and to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and ordered the sentence to run concurrently.2. Though the appellant was charged originally for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C, the charges were framed by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. and, accordingly, the appellant was tried and convicted thereunder. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.3. The facts leading to the conviction of the appellant are as follows :'(a) The appellant was working as a Constable in Coonoor Traffic Police Station. The deceased Pushpa got married to the appellant on 1.11.1987 and they were living in Coonoor in a separate house. After a period of 11 months, a son by name Vinodh...
Thangaraju Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ189
M. Karpagavinyagam, J. 1. Challenging the conviction for the offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months, Thangaraju, Village Administrative Officer, has filed this appeal before this Court.2. According to the prosecution, the appellant, Village Administrative Officer of Pasar Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, demanded on 2-3-1988 Rs. 300/- from one Kesavan of Ariyanthakka Village (P.W. 1) as a gratification in order to prepare and furnish to him the copies of the Chitta, Adangal and Sketches and accepted a sum of Rs. 50/-on 3-3-1988 and the balance of Rs.. 250/-on 9-3-1988.3. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows :(a) Kesavan (P.W. 1) was working as a Driver in Periyar Transport Corporation. He was owning lands at Ariyanthakka village. In his two lands, two wells situate separately. He appl...
P. Palani Vs. P. Saminatha Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ742
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 13.2.2001 made in O.S.No. 454 of 1998.2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 454 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore against the respondents herein/ defendants for declaring his right to easement to let out water for a width of 2 feet beyond the line CF in the plaint plan and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall constructed by them 2 1/2' away of the western side of CP wall to a height of 15 feet.3. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing various averments made by the plaintiff.4. During the trial, when P.W.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiff, a partition arrangement dated 21.6.1982 was sought to be marked. The said move was objected by the defendants on the ground that it is an unregistered document and the same cannot be marked. However, it is contended on the side of ...
J. Venkatesh Vs. S. Venkatraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ374
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. This petition is filed to condone the delay of 363 days in filing the O.S.A.2. Mr. N. Maninarayanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the O.S.A. was filed on 30.11.2000 within the limitation period. However, the certified copy of the decree was not filed along with the papers in O.S.A. under the impression that the said copy is not necessary. When the Registry returned the papers, realising the mistake, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the decree on 12.7.2001, which was made ready on 13.7.2001, and thus the delay of 363 days occurred. The delay is neither wanton nor willful, but under the bona fide impression that the certified copy of the decree is not necessary for filing the O.S.A.3. We have carefully considered the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The appeal was filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.7.2000, passed in Application No. 859 of 1999 in C.S.No. 221 of 1951 on the f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR158(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is regarding its claim for deducting legal expenses incurred by it in contesting the quantum of compensation awarded by the State for the compulsory deprivation of agricultural land which was held by the assessee primarily on lease. The assessee was also deprived of some extent of land which it had owned. All this was the consequence of the legislation imposing a ceiling on land holdings and the award of very limited compensation therefor under the provisions of the land ceiling legislation.2. The assessee claims that though it is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar, the lands owned by it were being used for producing sugarcane and the activity of producing sugarcane was an activity which was integral to the manufacture of sugar, sugarcane being the raw material. The assessee, however, did not at any time treat the income obtained by it from the production of sugarcane as income assessable u...
P.C. Duraisamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex., Erode-i
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT77(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioner, proprietor of Sakthi Trading Company has filed this writ petition to quash the proceeding in O.C. No. 578 of 1996, dated 24-4-1996. The said document purports to be show cause notice served on the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was manufacturing edible preparations such as Turmeric Powder, Chilly Powder, Coriander Powder, Masala Powder, Sundavathal and washing and cleaning preparations such as Soapnut powder and cleaning powder and as such those preparations are coming within the edible preparation as classified under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2108.90 as 'Edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included' and the soapnut powder and cleaning powder under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3402.90. In the notice, it was indicated that the edible preparations were exigible at the rate of 20% adv. and the washing and cleaning preparations at 30% adv.3. The main c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.G. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR339(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Baba, J. 1. The assessment year is 1979-80. 2. Despite the absence of provisions similar to Sections 80 and 139(3) with regard to the need for having the loss determined in the relevant assessment year before claiming the right of carry forward of the loss to subsequent assessment years, the Revenue contended before the Tribunal that loss in relation to the agricultural activity of the assessee in earlier years, prior to the assessment year in which agricultural as well as non-agricultural income was returned by the assessee should not be considered. That contention having been rejected by the Tribunal, which upheld the view that was taken by the Commissioner, the Revenue has brought this reference before us for considering the following questions : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to have the losses of earlier years under the head 'Agricultural income' set off against ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.J. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)140; [2002]256ITR191(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment years are 1981-82 and 1982-83.2. This court in the case of CIT v. Sitalakshmi (Minor) : [1996]217ITR595(Mad) , in circumstances were similar to those in this case, held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. That decision however would not apply to the facts of the case before us, as Explanation 2A to Section 64 was incorporated in the statute with effect from April 1, 1980, and remained a part of the statute till its repeal with effect from April 1, 1993. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1981-82 and 1982-83. The decision relied upon by learned counsel is one which was rendered in relation to an assessment year prior to 1980.3. Explanation 2A to Section 64 of the Income-tax Act reads as under :'for the purposes of Clause (iii), where the minor child of an individual is a beneficiary under a trust, the income arising to the trustee from the membership of the trustee in a firm shall, to the extent such income is for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »