Chennai Court March 1985 Judgments
S. Mahadevan Vs. S. Balasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ31
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. W.P. No. 5426 of 1984 has been preferred by the petitioner for the issue of a writ of quo warranto or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the first respondent herein to show to the satisfaction of this Court on what legal authority he was appointed as Associate Professor in the Madras Veterinary College on 30.4. 1984 and how he continues in the office. The Office of Associate Professor in the Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, hereinafter referred to as the office, in the second respondent University, amongst other offices, was sought to be filled . up by the second respondent by calling for applications by making the requisite advertisement in The Hindu on 8.2.1984. The interview by the Selection Committee was held on 21.4.1984 and the second respondent appointed the first respondent to the Office on 28.4.1984 and the first respondent assumed Office on 30.4.1984 A.N. The ground on which the writ of quo warranto is asked for is ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopalan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ222
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is a peculiar suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of damages against the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Timchirapalli.2. The facts leading to the filing of case may be stated shortly. When there was a cyclone in this State sometime in 1978, the Tamil Nadu Legislature passed the Tamil Nadu Cyclone and Flood Affected Areas Cultivating Tenants (Temporary Relief) Act, 1978. The Act itself specified certain areas as cyclone and flood affected areas and included those places to the Schedule. One of the villages included in Krishnarayapuram in Kulitalai Taluk, which is shown as 525 in the Schedule. It is stated that the plaintiff owns an extent of 1.70 acres in the village of Krishnarayapuram, Kulitalai Taluk, The suit has been filed on the ground that though Krishnarayapuram village is not one of those affected by the floods, by a fraud on the Constitution, they have included this village also, as if it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanasekaran Vs. Manoranjithammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ366
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal has to be allowed on legal point taken before me. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal, is the son of one Rajamanicka who died in March, 1960. The first defendant is his widow as well as the mother of the plaintiff. Impeaching a sale dated 2.8.1961, marked in the case as Exhibit B-4, effected by the first defendant for herself and on behalf of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, in favour of the second defendant, who was the younger brother of Rajamanicka, the plaintiff laid the suit for partition, and separate possession of his three-fourth share in the suit properties. The first defendant remained ex parte. The substance of the defence of the second defendant, who died pending the suit and whose legal representatives were brought on record in the suit itself, was that the sale was for binding necessities. The Court below did not countenance the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit and that is how the plaintiff is before this...
Tag this Judgment!V. Muthiah Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Vedambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad106
Mohan, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The appeal arises out of O. S. 18 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. The said suit is for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.3. The averments in the plaint are shortly as under - (i) The suit property bearing door No. 41, Sokkappa Naicken St. Madurai was originally purchased by one Subbanna Iyer by a registered sale deed dated 5-6-1924. He died in the year 1927, leaving behind his widow Lakshmi Animal and his only daughter Vengalakshmi. By a registered adoption deed Ex. A6 dated 16-7-1936, the third defendant was adopted by Sethurama Iyer the husband of Vengalakshmi and Vengalakshmi as their son. On the death of Lakshmi Animal in 1939 Vengalakshmi, the daughter succeeded to the property and was enjoying the same, 2& woman's estate. Vengalakshmi died in 1945. On her death, her adopted son the third defendant succeeded to the property.(ii) By a registered sale deed Ex. Al dated 22-6-1972, the plaintiffs purch...
Tag this Judgment!Preethi Creations Represented by Partner P. Ramadas Vs. T.A.P. Enterpr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ353
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment of the properties of one of the partners of the defendant firm under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, read with Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The applicant-plaintiff, viz., a partnership-firm, filed the above suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 due from the respondent/defendant which is also a partnership firm. The claim arises out of an agreement under which the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 13,50,000 as lease consideration to the applicant for taking on lease the exploitation rights of a Tamil Talkie picture all over the world. At the time of the release of the picture the respondent was not able to pay the entire consideration and had to leave an arrears of Rs. 1,35,000. The applicant refused to deliver any print for release till the payment of entire consideration. The respondent assured that he will withhold the...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Nagapattinam Permanent Fund Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ368
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The second respondent herein, who was the Assistant Manager of the petitioner Permanent Fund, absented himself from duty without leave or permission from 6.5.1982 to 8.5.1982. An explanation was called for from him for his unauthorised absence from duty on the dates abovementioned and on 12.5.1982, the second respondent submitted an explanation setting out the circumstances under which he was obliged to be absent. That explanation was placed before the meeting of the Board of the Fund and a resolution was passed on 15.5.1982 terminating the services of the second respondent on the ground that the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not acceptable and the second respondent himself expressed a desire to be relieved on settlement of his accounts forthwith. A month's notice terminating the services of the second respondent with effect from 15.7.1982 was also given to the second respondent on 10.6.82. A reply was sent by the second respondent on 18.6.1982...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Mad)329; [1986]159ITR303(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company and has been carring on business in the purchase and sale of handloom clothes, shipping, stevedoring as well as managing agency. On July 21, 1967, it had entered into an agreement with Capelin Associates Limited, Geneva. Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as 'the foreign company'), for the purpose of setting up plant and machinery at Bangalore for manufacturing readymade garments. In accordance therewith, a factory for manufacturing readymade garments was set up during the accounting, year ending December 31, 1967. While determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 40,52,750 for the assessment year 1968-69, with which we are concerned in this reference, the Income-tax Officer, disallowed, among others, Rs. 4,11,474 representing the aggregate of the amounts paid to the foreign company, according to the terms of the agreement, by way of salary paid to the foreign technicians, the cost of air passage, hotel accommodation, etc...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Udayar Vs. Pichaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad300
1. The point that arises in this second appeal is as to whether after the dismissal of an application filed under O. 21 R. 90 C.P.C. to set aside a sale in, execution, the judgment-debtor could file a suit to set aside a sale. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff whose application under O. 2 1, R. 90, C.P.C. had been dismissed cannot file a suit to challenge the validity of the court auction sale. The view taken by the courts below is challenged in this second appeal.2. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that a suit is barred only against an order passed by the Court under O.21, R. 90 C.P.C. and that a suit to set aside a sale is not at all barred. I am not able to appreciate the distinction made by the learned counsel for the appellant between the order passed under O.21 R. 90 C.P.C. and the original order directing the sale itself. The relief sought for in the suit though couched in a language which may not fall under O.21 R. 90 C.P.C. the object ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jayaraj Vs. A. Kumaravel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad367
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order made in I.A. No. 299 of 1984 in O.S. No. 82 of 1975 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli.2. The following facts are necessary for appreciating the point that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner:- O.S. No. 82 of 1975 is an action for partition. The preliminary decree came to be passed on 25th July 1979 declaring that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to 3/5th share in items I to 17 and 20 to 24 of the plaint first schedule, second schedule, and third schedule properties directing division of the said items into five equal shares and allotting three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3. Cl. 4 provides that while dividing the third schedule business concerns, endeavour shall be made to allot one or more such concerns to plaintiffs 1to 3 and defendants 1 and 2. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the first plaintiff found his interest coming into conflict with that of other plaintiffs. Therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar (Deceased by L.R.) and anr. Vs. S.N. Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad41
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 13 of 1973 on the file of the subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, originally preferred this appeal. The original appellant died pending the appeal and his legal representative being his son is on record as the appellant. The respondents in the appeal are the defendants in the suit. The suit was laid under S. 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959, to set aside the order dated 13-10-1972 of the fourth defendant in A.P. No. 40 of 1971 and to declare that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the Ellai Chandi Vinayakar Temple in Coimbatore. The entire gamut of the facts need not be set out in this judgment for the simple reason, the controversy has boiled down to a particular aspect as to whether hereditary trusteeship, which was admittedly in existence, was lost by relinquishment as reasoned by the fourth defendant in his order and which has found countenance before the Court below. This appeal is directed against t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »