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.
Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Narayanaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ326
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No. 915 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Gingee. A suit was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff against the first defendant-petitioner who is the Court auction-purchaser of the property and also against the morgagors, defendants 2 to 4, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 570 due on a mortgage. The revision petitioner's contentions are: (1) that he has paid a sum of Rs. 409; (2) that he has also given to the plaintiff 23 bags of cement valued at Rs. 345 and the value of the cement has to be given credit to; and (3) that the first defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. The trial Court rejected all these contentions and decreed the suit in full and in appeal the decree was confirmed.2. Mr. Kadiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the plaintiff has deposed in Court that a sum of Rs. 500 has been paid and that only a sum of...
B.N.K. Press Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR310(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. These two tax cases arise out of assessment proceedings in respect of the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessee was assessed to an income of Rs. 75,748 for the assessment year 1960-61 and to an income of Rs. 15,986 for the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee company is one of the assessees in what is known as 'Sri Nagi Reddy Group'. As a result of some investigations in respect of bogus loans shown by the assessee, the assessments were reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a settlement in respect of the group of cases and in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the company filed revised returns showing a total income of Rs. 1,44,498 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 84,736 in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. The company was, however, assessed to incomes of Rs. 1,54,736 and Rs. 94,819, respectively, for the assessment years ...
K.K. Kuriyan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ165Mad
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3913 of 1977, who sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order of Government (1st respondent) in G.O.Rt. No. 332, Employment and Labour Department, dated 19th February, 1974 declining to make a reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication by the Labour Court. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is to the following effect. While the appellant was serving the second respondent as Assistant Cashier, certain charges were framed against him alleging that he had misappropriated sale amounts of scrap to the tune of Rs. 2017/- and when questioned by the Assistant Manager, he had made good only a sum of Rs. 500/- and failed to deposit the balance of the amount. The appellant's explanation to the charge memo was not accepted and a domestics enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charge was proved. Based on that finding the appellant wa...
Preetam Pipes Syndicate Vs. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad310
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W. P. Nos. 3252 and 3253 of 1980 is the appellant in these two writ appeals and the respondent in the writ petitions is the respondent in these two writ appeals. The appellant was in the list of registered and approved suppliers of the respondent and it had the benefit of an award of two contracts from the respondent. On 7-5-1980, the Superintending Engineer of the respondent addressed a communication to the petitioner as follows : -Necessary work orders were issued to you in the reference first cited above and in the reference second cited you were requested by the C.E. to execute the agreement within 3 days on receipt of this letter. Apart from this in this office letter 3rd cited above also you were requested to execute the agreement with the Executive Engineer concerned. In spite of this you have not either deposited the additional security deposits or executed the agreement. Therefore you are hereby informed that as per clause 9 of the tende...
Gyanchand JaIn Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC230; 1986(25)ELT163(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 2nd day of January 1986 and on this day upon perusing the petitions, and the Judgment of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. A. Panchapakesan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent the Court made the following order : This criminal revision case is filed by the accused Gyanchand Jain against the judgment dated 29-11-1982 in C.A. No. 393 of 1981, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner herein under section 85(1) read with section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (control) Act, 1968 and and the sentence of imprisonment for six months imposed on him by the trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution against the revision petitioner is that on 13-9-1979 at about 5.15 p.m. at Madras Central Railway Station at Platform No. 1, he...
N. Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Pichaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas414(Mad)
Nataraja, J.1. The interesting question raised in this revision is whether the sisters of a person, who died in a motor accident, can seek impleadment in a petition filed under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, and rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, by the widow and minor child of the deceased, for seeking compensation from the owner of the motor vehicle and his insurer. 2. One K.Nagarajan died in a motor accident. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the widow and minor son of the deceased, Nagarajan, filed MACTOP No.796 of 1983 against the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the insurance company, to claim compensation for the death of Nagarajan. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the sisters of Nagarajan, filed M.P.No.2045 of 1983 seeking impleadment on the ground that they also constitute his dependents and, consequently,they are also interested in the proceedings instituted for getting compensation from the owner and the insurer for...
S. Hari Ganesh (Minor) and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad55
S. Natarajan, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by two brothers, who sought admission in any of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu for the M. B. B. S., or B. D. S. Degree Course in the quota of twelve seats reserved for children born of intercaste marriage, under the special categories of candidates enumerated in Annexure I of the prospectus issued by the first respondent. Since neither of them was selected, the two petitioners have filed the respective petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus in favour of each for quashing sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Category (iv) of the reservations specified in Annexure I so far as it relates to each of them, and in addition, for the directions being issued to the respondents to admit each one of them in the first year of the M.B.B.S. Degree Course for the academic year 1985-86.2. Thiru Ramesh, petitioner in W.P. No. 9647 of 1985, is a major while Thiru Hari Ganesh, petitioner in W.P. No. 8390 of 198...
K.J. Srinivasan and ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ393
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondents are the successors in right, title and interest of the original defendants. I do not propose to dwell in extenso over the factual details of the controversy since I am inclined to remit the matter back for a fresh consideration to the lower appellate court taking note of a point of law advanced by Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. However, certain broad facts need delineation.2. The suit property being a site was the subject-matter of a demise by way of a lease by the plaintiff to and in favour of the first defendant. That lease was duly determined and on such determination the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation. The contesting defendants would resist the claim for recovery of possession and would plead that they would be entitled to protection under the T...
N. Lakshmi and anr. Vs. Pichaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC520
Natarajan, J.1. The interesting question raised in this revision is whether the sisters of a person, who died in a motor accident, can seek impleadment in a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, by the widow and minor child of the deceased, for seeking compensation from the owner of the motor vehicle and his insurer.2. One K. Nagarajan died in a motor accident. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein who are the widow and minor son of the deceased Nagarajan, filed M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 796 of 1983, against the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the Insurance company, to claim compensation for the death of Nagarajan. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the sisters of Nagarajan filed M. P. 2045 of 1983 seeking impleadment on the ground that they were being maintained by deceased Nagarajan and as such they also constitute his dependants and consequently, they are also interested in the proceedings instituted for ...
A.V.S. Perumal Vs. Vadivelu Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad341
1. The above Civil Revision Petition was taken up for final disposal by one of us (The Honourable the Chief Justice). At the time of hearing the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed the correctness of the ruling in Manicka Mudaliar v. Shanmughasundara Mudaliar (1982) 95 L.W.297. Finding substance prima facie in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, my Lord the Chief Justice directed the Civil Revision Petition to be posted before a Division Bench and the matter is thus before us. We shall first set out the facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition before considering the proposition of law laid down in Manicka Mudaliar's Case (1982) 95 L.W.297.2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No. 252 of 1981, on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Tiruchengode. The respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration of his right to continue in possession of the suit property as lessee and for permanent injunction restraining the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »