Chennai Court January 1986 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.
Muthammal Vs. Kaveriammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad103; (1987)IMLJ16
ORDER1. The plaintiff-decree holder, who is the petitioner in both the revision petitions, had filed a suit for possession of immovable property in which she had obtained a decree as far back as on 5-12-1972. The first appeal filed by the judgment debtor came to be dismissed on 6-12-1974, and the second appeal filed by her also came to be dismissed on 20-7-1978. The decree holder then took steps to execute the decree and filed an execution petition on 14-7-1983. It was posted on 25-8-1983, but since the decree-holder did not take any steps to have the notice served on the judgment-debtor, it was dismissed on 31-8-1983. On the same day, the decree-holder filed another execution petition and obtained a warrant for possession. The possession of the property was also delivered on 8-9-1983. The judgment debtor filed an application before the executing court that the delivery of possession should not be recorded because, the order for delivery of possession was made without issuing a notice ...
E. Elumalaichetty Vs. Naina Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad102
1. The plaintiff who succeeded in the first court but failed before the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff claimed a right to a 2 ft broad space, B schedule Property, on the western side of his house and for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking their cattle and men through that space and for an injunction directing the defendants to remove the cement tub built at the southern end of that space which obstructs the passage and stagnates the water. The lower appellate court considered the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiff, Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. It is found that the plaintiff made no attempt to fix the boundary line of the concerned street and the Commissioner's plan.Ex. C. 2 shows that the plaintiff has constructed two platforms on the eastern side of his house: one platform is 4' broad and another platform is 3'. 6' broad and if the measurements are taken from the platforms then the plaintiff will have no tile to the disputed ...
H.G. Nanjappa Vs. M.F.C. Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad108; (1987)IMLJ180
ORDER1. This revision petition fled by the defendant is directed against the order made by the District Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam that the memo of deposit of title deeds in the instant case did not require registration and was, therefore, admissible in evidence.2. The question arises in the following way : The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant-present petitioner claiming a sum of, Rs. 22,168, on the basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant on 22-4-1980. This amount, according to the plaintiff, was the price of fertilizers supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff-company. The promissory note makes the amount of Rs. 20.062-29 p. payable with interest at 1.50 per cent per annum. On 1-7-1980, the defendant deposited title deeds in respect of his property, according to the plaintiff, with intent to create an equitable mortgage of the property covered by the title deed for repayment of the moneys due under the promote dated 22-4-1980. The plaint alleges t...
Dominic Ammal and anr. Vs. Muthuswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ369
ORDER 2:Rule 2. Suit to include the whole claim:(1)Every suit shall include the whole; of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in Order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.(2) Relinquishment part of claim-Where a plaintiff orbits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs-A plaintiff entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so, omitted.Explanation : For the purpose of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respe...
W. Dhasaratha Rao and ors. Vs. Heroji Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ348
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Some of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are the appellants in this second appeal. The first respondent is the defendant in the suit and the other respondents are the other legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for declaration that the will executed by her step-mother one Kasi Bai is not valid and is not binding on her and for consequential reliefs in respect of the suit properties was discountenanced by the two Courts below. The defendant is the legatee under the will in question, marked in the case as Ex B1. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the only substantial question of law which was formulated by this Court runs as follows:That the will Ex. B-1 has not been proved or established to have been validly attested.2. On the question of execution, of unprivileged wills like Ex. B1. the statutory' principles that govern the same are to be gleaned from S.63 of the Indian Succession Act, hereinafter...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sarojini Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1014(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri George Cheriyan Accountant Member - This appeal by the revenue relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessment order states that the assessee, a private limited company, carries on business of plying transport buses. The ITO has observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation at 40 per cent on buses. The ITO stated that depreciation at this rate can be allowed only on buses which were let on hire. since the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on business of letting the buses on hire, according to the ITO, only 30 per cent depreciation could be granted. The assessee appealed and submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that depreciation should have been allowed at 40 per cent. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that when a bus is registered and operated as a public carrier, as distinguished from private carrier then it has to be considered that the bus was let out on hire. He, therefore, allowed the appeal.2. The revenue is aggrieved. The submissio...
Indian Rare Earths Limited Rep by Its Secretary and Chief Personnel Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ189
Natarajan, J.1. These writ Petitions and Writ Appeals have been filed by Messrs. Indian Rare Earths Limited, a company wholly owned by the Government of India, for seeking reliefs in the awards passed by the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram in references made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petitions have been filed for issue of Writ of certiorari to quash the awards passed by the Subordinate Judge in forty-nine original petitions taken on file under Section 18 of' the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The writ appeals have been filed against the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in twelve cases vacating earlier orders of stay relating to deposit of enhanced compensation amounts.2. The writ petitions and the writ appeals have come to be filed in the following circumstances: The petitioner company is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and wholly owned by the Government ...
A. Ghouse Basha Vs. the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC238
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed by A. Ghouse Basha accused in CC 11/82 on the file of the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Economic Offences against the judgment dated 16th February, 1982 in CA 403/82 on the file of the court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras Division, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner herein under Section 56(1)(i) read with Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973 as well as the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 10 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week and dismissing the appeal.2. The case Of the prosecution as seen from the contents of the complaint filed before the the trial court by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Finance Ministry, Government of India, Sashtri Bhavan, Madras, against the accused revision petitioner herein is as follows:--Information was received by the E...
Tamil Nadu Betelnut Packers Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC23; 1991LC316(Madras); 1986(25)ELT649(Mad)
ORDER1. All these writ petitions can be dealt with in a common judgment since all of them raise an identical issue as to the classification, though, of course the prayers may very depending upon the circumstances of the case. I will briefly refer to the facts in W.P. 10412 of 1985 to highlight the point involved. The writ petitioner is a company having its office in Madras. The company is a contractor for Grane Betelnut powder. There is no manufacture or preparation. Therefore, it is claimed that no excise duty is leviable. 2. The petitioners were asked to take out a licence for the purpose of excise duty on 10.4.1985, which licence was accordingly taken. The company has furnished a bond under B-2 on the date when it took out a licence to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Madras-1, Dn, for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards deposit as security. Further, they had furnished B-13 bond to the Government binding themselves for Rs. 25,000/- towards security deposit. The petitione...
Videowala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad52
ORDER1. Both these petitions have been filed by the Film Federation of India, represented by its President, D. Ramanujam. In the former petition the prayer is for vacating the interim stay granted in W.M.P. 15682 of 1984 and in the latter petition the prayer is for the impleadment of the petitioner as a respondent.2. The impleadment of the petitioner as a party-respondent in the writ petition is opposed by Messrs Videowala, who have filed W.P. 9745 of 1984 and obtained orders of interim stay. The said writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution to seek the issue of a writ of declaration to declare certain provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the amendment Act) insofar as they relate to the petitioner - Video Library, as void and unconstitutional.3. Having regard to the limited question for consideration in the W.M.P. 16395 of 1984, it is not necessary to set out the provisions of the amendment Act, which are challenged, and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »