Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1992]197ITR545(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioner in the first batch, Crl. M. P. No. 7552 of 1985, etc., is M/s. Jayalakshmi Financiers represented by its proprietor, C. A. Baloo. In the second batch. Crl. M. P. No. 7962 of 1985, etc., the petitioner is M/s. Samarias Finance, Madras. The respondent in all these petitions, in both batches, is the Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation), Office of the Deputy Director, Inspection, Income-tax Department, Madras-34. 2. The first batch of cases are referable respectively to C. C. Nos. 187 to 197 of 1985, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II), Egmore, Madras. The second batch of cases in the serial order are referable to C. C. Nos. 283 to 318 of 1985, pending on the file of the same learned Magistrate. 3. Prosecutions have been initiated against the respective petitioners in these petitions by the respondent alleging violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, punishable under se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003]260ITR241(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The memorandum of association dated November 14, 1981, of the assessee, Wankaner Jain Social Welfare Society, sets out the objects of the society. Those objects, inter alia, are to create and cultivate the habit of saving and thrift among the members of the society ; to help by way of loan or other assistance to members who are in bona fide need of help for the purpose of promotion of business, trade, profession, industry agricultural, etc. The rules and regulations of the society make it compulsory for every member to participate in the scheme of deposit, which is provided for in Rule 50(c). The deposit is to be a minimum of 50 paise and multiples thereof per working day. The members may seek loans. Loans are regulated by Rule 52. The loan application is to be considered by the loan committee, only when a member has furnished two sureties. The decision of the loan committee will be final and binding on the applicants for loans. In the case of ladies who are not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)4MLJ1626
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The respondent herein filed a Claim Petition before the Learned Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement for deciding the disputes arising out of the Construction Agreement dated 18.8.201 entered into between the respondent and the petitioner, who is the builder. During the course of the enquiry before the learned Arbitrator, the respondent wanted to mark the said Construction Agreement dated 18.8.2001 as an Exhibit. At that time, the revision petitioner filed a memo stating that the Construction Agreement cannot be marked as it is was insufficiently stamped and also that it was not registered. The respondent filed his counter to the memo and after a detailed enquiry, the learned sole Arbitrator dismissed the said memo. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner-builder has filed this revision.2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in view of Section 35 and Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Article 5(i) c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
COMMON ORDER1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, common order is being passed. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from W.P.No.10847 of 2010. 2 The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Secondary Grade teachers working in various schools in the State of Tamilnadu. The petitioners in order to acquire higher educational qualification applied to the District Educational Officer in the district and the teachers employed in Corporation Schools applied to the Educational Officer of the Corporation for permission to join in the Distance Education Course called the Distance mode conducted by SASTRA University, Tanjavur. SASTRA University is a Deemed University recognised by University Grants Commission in the year 2001. The University is also approved by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in 131st meeting held on 11.04.2007 also granted conditional recognition for awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Mother-in-law has filed the suit against the son-in-law, for a judgment and decree, to declare that she is the only heir of her daughter Muniyendra. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, by judgment and decree in O.S.No.700/2000, the learned Principal District Munsif, Gudiyatham, granted a decree, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/son-in-law preferred an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decision, stated supra. Assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per their litigative status in the lower Court. 3. The detailed pleadings are as follows:- According to the plaintiff, her daughter Muniyendra was employed as a Typist in Excise department in the office of the Tahsildar, at Gudiyatham. Her husband/defendant murdered Muniyendra and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1992Mad61; (1991)IIMLJ106
ORDER1. The above revision petitions are dealt with in common, since they concern a common property and have been dealt with at all relevant points of time in common.2. The petitioner herein has filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 6070 and 6071 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, O.S. No. 6070 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Pandurangan) was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 430/- towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for future damages. O.S. No. 6071 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Parthasarathy alias Govindasamy) was atenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery of Rs. 430/- being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery of future damages at Re. 1/- per day from 1-6-1971. It is not necessary at this stage to dwell into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad160; (1963)1MLJ15
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras City, has made this reference to the High Court under Section 432(2) Cr. P. C. for its decision on certain questions of law which arose during the hearing of C. C. No. 5192 of 1961 on his file. The facts that led to the reference are briefly the following: 2. One P. Ramaswami, accused in the case is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a paper called 'Nathigam'. In three issues of this paper an article under the caption 'Allavin Thandanayil Alangolam' was published and it is alleged that the above publication was made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of the Muslims and that consequently the accused committed an offence under Section 295-A I. P. C. ' In order to comply with the provisions in Section 196 Cr. P. C., which prescribes that a complaint made by the order of, or under authority from the State Government, is an essential prerequisite before a court can take cognizanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad126; (1953)IIMLJ303
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing her suit, reversing the decree granted in her favour by the learned District Munsif. The suit was for a declaration that the othi deed Ex. A. 5 dated 10-2-1945 (of which Ex.B, 5 is the original) executed by the power-of-attorney agent of Sankararamier defendant 3 in favour of his brother defendant 1 does not affect the plaintiff's rights to the suit properties under the saledeed in her favour and for recovery of possession of the same with profits. The plaint schedule properties, it is not disputed, originally belonged to defendant 3. Under a sale deed dated 17-2-1945 Ex. A. 1 the property was conveyed by defendant 3 to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1350 of which, the consideration was fully paid. In the document, defendant 3 assured the plaintiff that the property was free from encumbrances and that he held the property absolutely. As the plaintiff was obstructed,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad259; [1951]19ITR487(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These references though, they relate to different assessees arise under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, & the question referred is substantially the same in both. except for the dates.'Whether In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that, for the purpose of computing the capital employed in the business as at the beginning & the end of the standard period 1-10-1935 to 31-12-1936 (31-1-1936 is a mistake) the value of the depreciable assets should be determined with reference to the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, 1939'.(The standard period in R. C. No. 63 of 1947 is from 1-1-1936 to 31-12-1936).2. In view of the arguments addressed-in these cases we had to alter the question & it was agreed that the following question brings out clearly the real bone of contention between the parties: 'Whether the profits for the purpose of Rule 5 of Schedule II should be calculated in the manner prescribed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad433
1. These two writ petitions raise for consideration the validity of the orders passed, whereby the petitioners, who are the natives of Malabar, have been prevented from entering the island of Minicoy in the Arabian Sea. These petitions originally came on for hearing before one of us sitting singly, but in view of a challenge to the validity of Section 33 of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation I of 1912, it was directed to be posted before a Bench and they were heard by us. The learned Advocate General appeared for the state, find we are obliged to him for the assistance he rendered us.2. The facts giving rise to the petitions were briefly these: W. P. No, 533 of 1955 is by a single petitioner. He is a native of Malabar district, of which Minicoy island forms part. He claims to have been permitted to reside In this Island for about 16 years past, carrying on there a business in grocery. He also claims to have married a native of the island and to have two children by her. All t...
Tag this Judgment!