Chennai Court March 1984 Judgments
Subramania Gurukkal and ors. Vs. Arulmighu Thirurnaleswaraswamy Deity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad217
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, on a reference under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, in L. A. 0. P. No. 16 of 1978. Claimants I to 6 are the appellants.2. An extent of 1.78 acres comprised in S. F. No. 88 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a Depot for Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. There was a reference under Section 18 which was also disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge in L. A. 0. P. No. 15 of 1978, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,0001per acre. Since there was a dispute relating to the title, the matter was also referred to the learned Subordinate Judge under S. 31, land Acquisition Act.3. The said S. F. No. 88 measuring 1.78 acres and another extent of 1.96 acres comprised in S. F. No. 735 were the subject matter of an inam grant. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Arul Murugan Traders Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ375
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 163 of 1982, on file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam. It filed the suit against respondents herein, for grant of a permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the sum of Rs. 85,639.89 from the State Bank of India, Gobichettipalayam Branch, till they establish their claim against the plaintiff in a court of law. Pending disposal of the suit in I.A. No. 737 of 1982, it sought for grant of a temporary injunction under Order 39, rule I and section 151, CPC, restraining respondents from realising the said amount by enforcing the bank guarantee till the disposal of the suit. Courts below having rejected the relief, this civil revision petition is preferred. 2. The plaintiff claimed as follows : The first defendant manufactures nitrogenous and other chemical fertilisers. The plaintiff was appointed as a dealer under exhibit B-25 dated September 25, 1980, for the sale and distribution of its products in certain territories o...
Tag this Judgment!Arul Murugan Traders Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd., Bom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad161; [1986]59CompCas399(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 163 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. It filed the suit against respondents herein, for grant of a permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the sum of Rs. 85,639-89 from the State Bank of India, Gobichettipalayam branch till they establish their claim against the plaintiff in a court of law. Pending disposal of the suit, in I.A. 737 of 1982, it sought for grant of a temporary injunction under 0. 39 R. I and S. 151 C.P.C. restraining respondents from realising the said amount by enforcing the bank guarantee till the disposal of the suit. Courts below having rejected the relief, this civil revision petition is preferred.2. The plaintiff claimed as follows. The first defendant manufactures Nitrogenous and other chemical fertilisers. The plaintiff was appointed as a dealer under Ex. B 25 dt. 25-9-1980 for the sale and distribution of its products in certain territories of TamilNadu. As and when plaintiff inform...
Tag this Judgment!Pankajam and ors. Vs. Chinliaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad235; (1984)1MLJ345
1. The defendants I to 3 in 0. S. No. 191 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Tiruppur, are the appellants in this second appeal, That suit was laid by the respondent herein praying for a declaration of his right to enjoy the suit properties as a cultivating tenant and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and other, incidental reliefs. Admittedly, the suit properties belonged to one Ranganayaki Ammal, after whose death the appellants became entitled to them. The respondent claimed that his father Rangaswami Naidu was a lessee of the suit properties till about 21 years prior to the filing of the suit and that on his death, he became the tenant under the owner Rauganayaki Ammal about 21 years ago on an annual rent of R's. 1,000/-, , which was subsequently raised to Rs. 1,300/-, in 1965 and again to Rs. 1,5001- in .1.971. Claiming that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppurajammal Vs. Meenakshi Amnmal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad257; (1984)1MLJ404
ORDER1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No. 341 of 1964, Sub Court, Coimbatore is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of the, Court below passed in E. A. No. 1703 of 1981 in 1. A. 685 of 1980 in 1. A. 136 of 1978 in 0. S. 341 of 1964, allowing the application filed by the respondent herein under Ss. 148 and 151, C. P. Code, praying that the delay in depositing the sum of Rs. 8,384 for payment to the petitioner be excused and time for such payment be enlarged. On 28-81969, the petitioner obtained a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of her one-tenth share in the suit properties. The respondents herein filed 1. A. 685 of 1980 in 0. S. 341 of 1964 praying for the appointment of a Commissioner fog the division of Item I of the suit properties. into ten equal shares by metes and bounds and for suggesting the manner of allotment and to pass a final decree thereafter. While that application was pending, a joint petition was filed by...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Sudarsanam Vs. Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas282(Mad)
Shanmukham, J.1. This application purported to be one under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, is taken out by a member of the respondent company. According to the applicant, the remuneration of the director-secretary was fixed at Rs. 15,000 for the period from June 12, 1980, to June 11, 1985. Nevertheless Special Resolution No. II has been passed in the general body meeting held on December 30, 1982, and the said resolution is to the effect that the remuneration of the secretary-director is subject to a minimum of Rs. 12,500 and maximum of Rs. 30,000 instead of Rs. 15,000 per annum for the five year's term up to June 11, 1985. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, as long as the remuneration has already been fixed for the period ending June 11, 1980, (1985 ?) such remuneration cannot be revised during the said period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to section 309(7). According to the said provision, the special resolution referred to...
Tag this Judgment!irst Income-tax Officer Vs. M. V. M. Chellamuthupillai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD403(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant Member -These appeals by the revenue pertaining in to three partners of the firms, Anguvilas M. V. Muthiah Pillai Firm, Dindigual are consolidated and disposed of by a common order of the sake of convenience as they involve common facts and common issue raising common grounds. These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 and 1982-83 and are directed against the common but separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8-9-1983 wherein he held that the salary income received by the partners who represented their respective HUFs in the abovesaid firm should not be included in the hands of the HUF but should be separately assessed in the hands of the partners in individuals status. In the common grounds, the revenue urged that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and that of the ITO be restored.2. The assessee are HUFs (specified) and they are represented in the firm, Anguvilas M. V. Muth...
Tag this Judgment!Nellai Mavatta Cooli Thozhilalar Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ270Mad
ORDER1. Nellai Mavatta Cooli Thozhilalar Sangam, Tirunelveli, is the petitioner and it seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to register respondents 3 and 4 as principal employers of the Ware house at Tirunelveli and to provide for all amenities as prescribed under the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. Third respondent is a statutory corporation in which 50 percent of the shares are held by the Central Warehousing Corporation and the other 50 percent by the State of Tamil Nadu Contractors entered into agreements for providing labour force for loading and unloading operations and even though contractors have changed from time to time, the same workers continue to carry out work and, to the full knowledge of respondents 1 and 2, no beneficial provisions of any labour legislation were implemented during the past twelve years. No proper registers relating to them are being maintained either by the Contractor of the principal employer-fourth...
Tag this Judgment!A. Nabisa Beevi Vs. the Manager, Canara Bank, Nagarcoil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad249; (1984)2MLJ22
ORDER1. The second defendant in O. S. No, 18 of 1959, Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was laid against the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and the Indian Chit Fund (P) Ltd. for the recovery of sum of Rs. 8172-62 p. with future interest on the basis of certain overdraft facilities afforded by the plaintiff bank to the husband of the petitioner to secure the repayment of which the petitioner bad created a mortgage over her own properties. The mortgage was created by the petitioner on 21-9-1952. The husband of the petitioner and the Indian Chit Funds (P) Ltd. the subsequent encumbrancer, remained ex parte in the suit. Certain defences were put forth by the petitioner in the suit, but they were overruled and on 29-1-1960, a preliminary decree was passed declaring the amount due under the mortgage as Rs. 8172-62 p. and directing the husband of the petitioner to pay that amount as well as costs of Rs. 817-60 p. on or before 2...
Tag this Judgment!Rajambal Vs. Murugappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad284
ORDER1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the wife Rajambal, petitioner in I. A. No. 1013 of 1982 in M.O. P. No. 14 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned. First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The application was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the lower Court under the provisions of S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against her husband Murugappan alias Kumaresan praying for Rs. 1000/- towards interim maintenance per month and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. The husband-respondent herein filed an application M.O. P. No. 14 of 1981 before the lower Court for restitution of conjugal rights. The revision petitioner herein had alleged in her petition that her husband has left the marital abode of the revision petitioner herein that subsequently the revision petitioner being driven out from the marital abode, had completed her Plus 2 studies and now has joined M. B. B. S. course in Stanley Medical College, Madras and she has complet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »