Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2771
1. The petitioner was the third accused in C.C. No. 306 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge (Sessions Judge designated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), Madurai. 2. He, on trial, for refraction or violation of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985 - as amended by Act No. 2 of 1989 - for short 'NDPS Act') was found guilty, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of one lakh of rupees, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred Appeal No. 319 of 1994 on the file of this Court. Along with the said appeal, he also filed the present petition praying to suspend the sentence so imposed on him and release him on bail, pending disposal of the appeal. 4. On this petition, notice had been ordered to the State represented by the Intelligence Officer, Directora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad442; 1957CriLJ765
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision which has been filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1955 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli Division in C. A. No. 217 of 1956.2. V.C. Subramanian Chettiar, the Revision petitioner before me, had married one Pichai Ammal the only daughter of Sankarakuttalathammal. There was a daughter by that marriage. Sometime afterwards both Pichai Animal and this daughter died, This Sankarakuttalathammal viz., the ex-mother-in-law of this Revision Petitioner had inherited properties of considerable value from her deceased husband. There was interminable civil litigations about it which came up to High Court and eventually this petitioner got a share of the properties. On account of these litigations there was bitter ill-feeling between this Revision Petitioner and the said Sankarakuttalathammal.3. P.W. 1 Chitraputran Chettiar had married Sankarakuttalat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1993(44)ECC262; 1993(65)ELT25(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has found a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the petitioner-respondent invalid. The Union of India, the Collector of Customs and Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who were party-respondents in the writ petition have appealed against the said order. The impugned summons was issued to the petitioner-respondent by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, stating that he was making inquiries in connection with investigation into alleged evasion of custom duty on the import of Lupofresh Browary HDP Extract/Pollots in the name of M/s. Integrated Exports, M/s. Trio Imports and Exports (P) Ltd. and Arasan Industries. According to the summons, the goods were cleared through Madras Air Cargo and through Trivandrum Airport, but the Assistant Director considered the attendance of the petitioner-respondent necessary to give evidence and produce documents relating to import of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad77; 1967CriLJ205
Natesan, J. (1) This revision case arising out of a proceeding before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, under S. 488(1), Cri P.C. comes before us, as the matter has been referred to a Bench in few of the conflict of case law and marked divergence of opinion between various High Courts and even in decisions of the same High Court on the question whether the word 'child' in S. 488(1), Cri P.C. in the context means a person of tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority, that is, person under nonage or expresses only the relationship of a person as the immediate issue of a parent, without reference to age.(2) The application which has given rise to the proceeding was filed by one Amirthammal, the petitioner, herein, of Melapannagaram, Madurai, against her son Marimuthu claiming maintenance for two children of Marimuthu, a son named Balakrishnan and a daughter Ramanujam, both of whom are living with her. It is seen from the order of Court below that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003CriLJ2779
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set side the order passed by the first respondent to freeze the accounts of not only the petitioner but also his family members held with the second and third respondents, pending investigation in Cr. No. 13/2002 on averments such as that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above crime number for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is pending investigation with the first respondent; that the petitioner is a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from the Purasawalkam Assembly Constituency on behalf of the Tamil Maanila Congress Jana Nayaga Peravai; that the case has been foisted against him at the instance of the ruling party due to political animosity; that the first respondent conducted several raids at his house and business premises but was unable to unearth anything; that in such circums...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad439
1. On 7th July 1925, the Government of Madras granted to the Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, a licence under Section 3(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as " the 1910 Act") for supply of electrical energy to the towns of Tiruchirapalli and Srirangam. This licence with its conditions has been marked as Ex. A.94 in these proceedings. The Tiruchirapalli Municipality had its Head Water works and sub-pumping station run on electricity. Under Ex. A.1 dated 31st October 1934, the said Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, entered into an agreement with the Tiruchirapalli Municipality for supply of electricity for the purpose of running the Head Water works sub-water works and other electric power driven installations within the Municipal limits. Clause 10 of this agreement dealt with the charge payable by the Municipality for the electrical energy supplied to it and the said cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Mad)418; [1999]238ITR466(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the question referred to us, which arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 in respect of the assessment of the wealth of State Bank of Travancore Employees' Union is, as to whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the assessee, which is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, is liable to wealth-tax in the status of 'individual' under the Wealth-tax Act, having regard to the relevant provisions of the statute including the Indian Trade Unions Act and the authorities and decisions considered by it. 2. The charge to wealth-tax is created under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which creates a charge for wealth-tax in respect of the net wealth of 'every individual, a Hindu undivided family and the company'. The Tribunal has held that the word 'individual' is capable of taking within its scope an artificial juristic entity like a trade union, which on incorporation under the Trade U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Mad)557
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The following two questions are referred to this Court for its opinion : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. India Cine Agencies (1995) 54 ITD 257 (Mad), the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 32A of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 80HHC for the assessment year under consideration in terms of Circular No. 729 dt. 1st Nov., 1995, which is applicable only from the asst. yr. 1991-92 onwards ?' The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. 2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are as follows : The assessee is a company doing business of mining and quarrying of granite stones and exporting them as finished goods to various countries. Before exporting these granite stones ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.1999 in A.S.No.109 of 1997 on the file of Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, in the Judgment in A.S.No.109 of 1997 dated 13.10.1999 has among other things observed that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and further it is also held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.20,000/- determined by the trial Court as compensation and consequently allowed the Appeal, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in the main Suit O.S.No.46 of 1996 on its file.3.Before the trial Court, on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff, 1 to 9 issues were framed for trial. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for first respondent, and Mr.G.Vasudevan, Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent culminating in his proceedings bearing Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/DFC/AO/REV/ AS/A5/F.E.Tax/D.864/11, dated 08.12.2011, issued for the petitioner's H.T.SC No.82 and quash the same as being violative of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act,2003, and also as unconstitutional. 3. According to the petitioner, it is a unit of The Kadri Mills (Cbe) Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The said unit has a High Tension Electricity Supply Connection bearing HTSC No.82 with a maximum demand of HT supply. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), first respondent herein, is the subsidiary and succ...
Tag this Judgment!