Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)2MLJ461
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. These 12 Civil Revision Petitions (except C.R.P. No. 3127 of 1989) are preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appointment of trustees for the Trust called M.K.N.Madarasa of Adiramapatnam by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur of Thanjavur in O.S. No. 21 of 1952 as modified as S. No. 6 of 1970, dated 5.9.1989.2. C.R.P. No.3127 of 1989 is filed for transferring the proceedings on the file of the first respondent herein, relating to the appointment of trustees for the trust M.K.N. Madarasa of Adiramapatnam.3. The Trust which is the subject matter of these petitions known as M.K.N. Madarasa of Adiramapatnam is a Muslim Trust with large endowments created by one Haji Khader Mohideen Maracair and his three brothers under two deeds of endowment dated 16.12.1900 and 6.4.1901. Undo the said deeds, the four donors constituted themselves as trustees for life and it was intended that their successors in their male line should...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1991]191ITR1(Mad)
Arunachalam J.1. The petitioners, the respondent as well as the offences alleged against the petitioners, are the same. The only difference is the assessment year during which the offences are stated to have been committed. The questions urged are common and hence these petitions are disposed of together. 2. Criminal M. P. No. 7309 of 1985 invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C. C. No. 140 of 1985, pending on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, and quash the proceedings therein, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court. The private complaint instituted by the respondent who is the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(1), Thanjavur, alleges commission of offences by the petitioners punishable under sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1973-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1852
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of one and the same transactions, and the questions involved in the petition are the same. Hence, by consent of both the parties, they were disposed of by a common order.2. W.P. No. 76 of 1990 is filed by one Karuppayee wife of the detenu M. Munisamy son of Muthu Maniar, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 12-12-1989 passed against the said M. Munisami and set the said M. Munisami at liberty.3. W.P. No. 324 of 1990 is filed by one Tamil Chelvi, wife of K. Munisami, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order dated 12-12-1989 passed against her husband and set him at liberty.4. Both the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(1)(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)104CTR(Mad)143; [1992]195ITR137(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Thiru G. S. R. Krishnamurthi (the petitioner herein) is accused No. 1 in E. O. C. C. No. 302 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras-600 008. 2. He is the Karta of the undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, Thirumathi C. Indira (accused No. 2), and children born of her, residing at No. 36, Neelakantha Metha Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Madras 600 017. His brother is Thiru G. Adhiseshagiri Rao (accused No. 3). 3. He, in his capacity as the karta of the undivided family, purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 3 acres 24.5 cents in Saligramam, boarding Madras City, from Thiru A. K. Velan, his wife, Thirumathi A. K. V. Jayalakshmi and his sons, Thiru A. K. V. Vignani, Thiru A. K. V. Sivagnani and Thiru A. K. V. Kalaignani (accused Nos. 4 to 8), as per the deed registered on May 24, 1982 as document No. 2788 of 1982, before the Sub-registrar, Kodambakkam, for an apparent and rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1993Mad90; I(1994)DMC598; (1993)IMLJ163
ORDERMishra, J.1. Respondent Konel Parekh and the appellant Radhika were married in accordance with Hindu rites on 1st of April, 1990 and a male child was born to them on 30th March, 1991, On 16-12-1991, however, Konel filed O.P. No. 694 of 1991 in this court seeking his appointment as the guardian of the son born on 30th March, 1991, named parthiv and also for other reliefs. He applied for a direction that he be given interim custody of Parthiv in Application No. 6404 of 1991 in the said petition, O.P. No.694 of 1991. Radhika, the appellant, responded to the notice stating inter alia that she had moved the family Court at Bombay seeking reliefs inter alia of divorce and for the interim custody of the minor child Parthiv, maintenance and restraint orders on 6-12-1991. The Family Court at Bombay on 11 -12-1991 by an order, restrained Konel from forcingly removing the child from her custody. She stated in her return that the order of restraint became necessary in view of the fact that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)2MLJ201
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. Ulaganathan, petitioner herein has filed this writ petition for habeas corpus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to produce his minor daughter Sunitha alias Obulaxmi and for setting her at liberty in the custody of the petitioner. The first respondent is the father-in-law and the second respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner married Uma Maheswari on 9.6.1984 and a female child was born on 11.12.1986 and the minor child Miss. Sunitha is now aged about six years. The minor daughter is studying in Mettur St. Marys Montessori School at Mettur Dam from 24.5.1990 and she was in the school till 5.5.1992. The petitioner has stated that his family is one of the richest families in Salem District carrying on business. The petitioner was living with his wife happily. The petitioner's parents are having two sons including himself and the petitioner is the eldest son. His wife being the only daughter-in-law of his parents, was treated with gre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1994]208ITR676(Mad)
Raju J.1. The above writ petitions have been filed by one and the same writ petitioner, though relating to different assessment years, viz., 1987-88 to 1990-91, respectively, for writs of mandamus directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, staying the collection of the disputed tax and interest relating to those assessment years. Before adverting to the grievance and the contentions of the respective parties, it would be useful to refer to the circumstances which led the petitioner to approach this court. The petitioner is a partnership firm and was said to be an assessee on the file of the first respondent, holding permanent account No. 49-001-FV-2540. The petitioner was carrying on business of printing and sale of labels during the relevant assessment years, and according to the petitioner, it has been regularly submitting the return of income. The assessment relating to the petitioner was also said to have been completed up to the assessment year 1992-93 and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)120CTR(Mad)427; [1994]208ITR400(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The taxability and computation of income of a resident of India in respect of the income derived from a foreign source is the subject-matter of a batch of tax reference cases pending on the file of this court. An adjudication of the issues raised depends upon the agreement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes of income published in Notification No. 1705/F. No. 11(43)/46-FTD dated July 1, 1977. Learned counsel appearing in some of the cases have selected a few of the representative cases which could be decided initially so that the other cases could be ultimately decided applying the ratio of these cases. Though the terms of reference in different cases vary, the core of the problem and the basic issues involved for adjudication are similar and identical and, consequently, these cases are taken up for consideration together. 2. Tax Case No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)2MLJ153
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. The civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is the petitioner in the civil revision petition. He has filed I.A. No. 432 of 1993 in the lower court for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her rights of quarrying land in S. No. 72 in Arakampattu village and in S. No. 284 in Guruvoyal village till the disposal of the suit. The suit is for a declaration that the respondents/defendants are not entitled to enforce the alleged order of the 1st respondent in Rc.416(A)87/C5, dated 15.11.1988 as it is void and ultra vires, illegal and unenforceable and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interferring with S. No. 284 of Guruvoyal and S. No. 72 of Arukampattu village with the right of the plaintiff to quarry for a further period of three years and thereafter until evicted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1995]82CompCas836(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 806 of 1994. - This writ appeal is by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 19256 of 1993, dated May 10, 1994. This writ appeal was heard along with C. M. A. Nos. 743 of 1993 and 875 of 1994, since they are connected with the same matter. 2. C. M. A. No. 743 of 1993 is by the third respondent in the writ petition and C. M. A. No. 875 of 1994 is by the eighteenth respondent. 3. The relevant facts in the writ appeal are as follows : According to this appellant, as per the resolution dated April 30, 1992, of the third respondent-company, it was resolved to increase the share capital from 5,000 equity shares to 25,000 equity shares having a value of Rs. 10 per share. As per article 6 of the articles of association, the same was offered to all the shareholders of the company. Since two shareholders did not agree to purchase the same within the period, the same was offered to the eighteenth respondent, anothe...
Tag this Judgment!