Chennai Court December 1984 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.
Badrinath Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Chief S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ318
ORDERChandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant who is the original petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and from 1973 to 1975 he was Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Archives and Historical Research. It is common knowledge that on 15.8.1973, a time capsule was buried in the precincts of Red Fort which also contained the history of India for the post-independence period telescoped into 10,000 word narrative. The task of compiling this narrative was entrusted to the Indian Council of Historical Research which in turn selected one Prof. Krishnaswami from Madras to write the said narrative which, it appears was ultimately accepted by the Government of India.2. Admittedly, in the course of his speech delivered on 7th September, 1973, to the students of the Presidency College, Madras on the subject of Indian attitude towards History, the petitioner had made some adverse comments on the nature of the narration. On the basis of this comment, charges were framed against the petitioner u...
Mohammed Abdulla Vs. P.M. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad379
ORDER1. This revision raises a very interesting point with regard to the executability of a decree passed by a foreign Court. The decree in question is one passed by the Sessions Judge at Kuala lampur in the State of Federal Territory, Malaysia, in Civil Action No. 1935 of 1981 on 5-12-1981. The petitioner in this revision is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor opposed the execution of the decree referred to above before the District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, where execution was levied, pleading that the decree is not conclusive and it will come within the exceptions under S. 13, sub-cls. (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the C.P.C., hereinafter referred to as the Code. The Court below has not accepted the contentions of the judgment-de6tor and has directed the execution to be proceeded with. This revision is directed against the orders of the Court below.2. Mr. P. Shanmugam, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, would put forth his...
S.R. Arulprakasam Vs. Prema Malini Vasan, Income-tax Officer, Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR487(Mad)
Kadar, J. 1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in CC No. 704 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Egmore, Madras-8. The accused is the petitioner. 2. The Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-XV, has launched a criminal prosecution against the petitioner for offences under sections 193, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 277 and 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, on the following averments. 3. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of Ratna Movies, carrying on business in distribution of films, is an income-tax assessee with the status of 'individual'. On October 11, 1977, the petitioner delivered his income-tax return for the assessment year 1977-78, showing a total income of Rs. 1,03,740. Along with the return, the petitioner also furnished a statement of profit and loss account for the year ending March 31, 1977, and trial balance as on March ...
R. Ganapathy Subramaniam Vs. Enfield India Ltd., Madras,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ77Mad
Ratnam, J.1. The appellant was an employee of the respondent herein as Godown Keeper in its premises located at No. 216, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras 81, which was covered by a Factory licence relating to the 'spare parts division.' In May 1973, it was found that in the godown there had been tampering with the seals of some boxes and that some others were kept open and this led to the preparation of an inventory which revealed that goods worth about Rs. 20,013.26 were found missing. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12th June, 1973 why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for gross negligence resulting in the loss of goods. After conducting an enquiry on 7th September, 1983, the services of the appellant were terminated. Against the order of termination, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, Shops Act). Even at the p...
P.N. Vallarasu Vs. Election Commission of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1987Mad6
Chandurkar, C.J.1. These three petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by Natarajan J., because according to the learned Judge, the matters raised in these petitions by the petitioner appear to him to be res integra. The additional ground stated by the learned Judge for referring the matter to the Division Bench was that the special circumstances of the case warrant the writ petitions being heard and disposed of within two weeks.2. The facts have been sufficiently set out in the referring order of the learned Judge. But we may briefly state that the substantial grievance of the petitioner in the above petitions is that, what is described by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of the arguments as R. 2(d) relating to. the officers before whom the candidate may make or subscribe oath of affirmation is ultra vires of the Constitution. It is obvious that if the petitioner is right in his contentions, then he was entitled to canvass the further contention that the...
Andalammal Vs. Rajeswari Vedachalarn (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad321
Shanmukham, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of Ismail J. as he then was, in A. S. Nos. 843 and 844 of 1971. The learned Judge set aside the common judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in 0. S. Nos. 23 of 1967 and 144 of 1968 respectively.2. O. S. 23 of 1967 is by the present appellant for setting aside the sale deed dated 17-7-1965 relating to the suit property marked as Ex. B 2, for recovery of possession of the said property and also for recovery of mesne profits, both past and future. Respondents 1 and 2 in L. P. A. 77 of 1978 are defendants 1 and 2 in that suit. The second respondent is an alienee of the suit property from the first respondent.3. The case of the appellant is that Ex. B 2 sale for Rs. 8000 was brought about by undue influence, coercion and fraud. According to the appellant, the first respondent, her Manager Venkatarama Naidu and her husband (appellant's husband) were in a position to dominate her will having regard ...
Palaniammal and ors. Vs. Pavayarnmal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad310
ORDER1. The judgment-debtors are the petitioners in this revision. The respondents ,are the decree-holders. The judgment-debtors filed a petition under O. 21, R. 2(2) Civil P. C. hereinafter referred to as the Code, to record part satisfaction of half of the decree amount in respect of decree-holders 3 and 4 to whom a sum of Rs. 700/- is stated to have been paid on 18-11-1980. That application has been dismissed by the Court below and that is how the judgment-debtors are before this Court by way of this revision. The Court below found that the decree is a joint decree and the shares of the respective decree-holders are not apparent on the face of the decree, either expressly or by necessary implication. This aspect is not being put in issue before me. Order 21, R. 1 (1)(b) of the Code contemplates that all money, payable under a decree, could be paid out of Court to the decree-holder in any one of the modes contemplated therein. The question came up before the Full Bench of this Court ...
S. Sundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. P. Govindaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad199; [1987]62CompCas414(Mad)
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against a wholly unsustainable order which has the effect of divesting the petitioners of ownership of 12,387 shares by an ad interim mandatory injunction which has been almost machanically passed by the trial Court.2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the suit which the Plaintiff-respondent 1 has filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, in which substantially the Plaintiffs case is that the first and second defendants (Petitioners 1 and 2) on behalf of defendants 3 to 21 (Petitioners 3 to 21) in the suit had agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff 1 6,387 equity shares of Messrs. Century Flour Mills Limited, Madras, respondent 2 herein.3. Respondent 2 herein is a Public Limited Company hereinafter referred to as the Company, in which admittedly defendants 1 to 20 had obtained 12,387 shares in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants dt. 12-12-1976. One of the terms of the agreement dt. 12-12-1976 was that the first,...
Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P. Muthuswamy Gounder and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad84
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S. No. 111 of 1982 Sub-Court, Karur, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent firm carrying on business in handloom goods at Karur, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,122.64 on the ground that two consignments of cloth entrusted at Karur to the petitioner, a common carrier, on 20-1-1978 & 30-1-78 respectively for being carried to Calcutta and delivered to the consignee there, had not been so delivered, that the goods sent back had also sustained damage due to rain and flood waters, that despite the request made by the respondent demanding open delivery it was not given, that the demand made in the notice issued on 10-11-19791by the respondent to the petitioner claiming the payment of the value of the goods as damages sustained by the respondent on account of the gross negligence, carelessness, misconduct and irresponsible handling of the goods by petitioner, while the goods were in its custody was not compl...
Rajambal and ors. Vs. Veeramuthu Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ225
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us in this appeal, which arises out of O.S. No. 221 of 1976, filed before the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The said suit was for partition and separate possession.2. The plaint averments are as follows: The first plaintiff is the second wife of deceased Muthusami Udayar. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of the plaintiff, born through the said Muthusami Udayar. He had a first wife by name Alamelu. Through her, he had the first defendant, son. Defendants 3, 5 and 6 are the sons and daughters of the first defendant. The 4th defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The second defendant is the sister of the 1st defendant. The grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 7, Poomalai Udayar, owned 2-66 acres of land at Virugavur. He also owned a terraced house, fully described in Schedule B. With the income from the lands Muthu-samy purchased another 6.30 acres, even during the lifetime of Poomalai. After the death of Pooma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »