Chennai Court October 1986 Judgments
United India Insurance Co., Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.V.Md. Ayisha Ummal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ172
Sengottuvelan, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals, No. 455 of1982 by the Insurance Co. and No. 807of 1983 by the owner of the vehicle, arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras,in O.P 703 of 1980 on its file. The facts of the case are briefly as follows.2. One P.M.A. Ahmed Jamaluddin, aged 42 years, a businessman, was riding his scooter TMS 9198 from west to east along Poonamallee High Road, at about 3-45 p.m. on 8.11.1980; the lorry, bearing Regn. No. TMK 1547, belonging to one Madanagopal, and having been insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., came at a high speed from east to west on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which the scooterist was knocked down and made to sustain multiple grievous head injuries. He ultimately died in the General Hospital, on 13.11.1980 while under treatment.3. The first petitioner before the Tribunal is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner is the wife...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.V. Md. Ayisha Ummal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC515
Sengottuvelan, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals, No. 455 of 1982 by the Insurance Co. and No. 807 of 1983 by the owner of the vehicle, arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in O P. 703 of 1980 on its file. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:2. One P.M.A. Ahmed Jamaluddin, aged 42 years, a businessman, was riding his scooter TMS 9198 from west to east along Poonamallee High Road, at about 3-45 p m on 8-11-1980, the lorry, bearing Regn. No. TMK. 1547, belonging to one Madanagopal, and having been insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., came at a high speed from east to was on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which the scooterist was knocked down and made to sustain multiple grievous head injuries. He ultimately died in the General Hospital, on 1311-1980 while under treatment.3. The first petitioner before the Tribunal is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner is the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Institute of Franciscan Missionaries of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: [1989]180ITR647(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question is sought to be referred at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 10(22) and 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In view of the decision in Addl. CIT v. Aditanar Education Institution : [1979]118ITR235(Mad) , no referable question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayanan and ors. Vs. R.N. Rajagopalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad75; (1987)IMLJ417
1. Defendants 1 and 3 and the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 1970, District Munsifs Court, Ambasamudram, are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by respondents 1 and 2 herein for a declaration that the first appellant herein is entitled only to a life estate in respect of the suit properties and that the various alienations in favour of the deceased second defendant, the third appellant and respondents 3 to 5 herein would not enure beyond the lifetime of the first appellant.2. The suit properties belonged to one Subbier, who had two wives. Through his first wife, Meenakshi Ammal, he had a daughter Ramalakshmi Ammal, the third appellant herein. Ramalakshmi Ammal's husband was one Gopala Iyer. They had two sons, namely, Narayanan alias Lakshminarayana Meenakshisundaram Iyer, the first appellant herein and Mahadeva Iyer, the deceased second defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 are the sons of the first appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kothandapani and ors. Vs. Sampathkumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad204; (1987)IMLJ297
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Sec. 39 of the Arbitration Act by the defendants in O. S.227 of 1984 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet against the dismissal of their application under S. 34 of the said Act for stay of all further proceedings in the suit.2. The respondents herein filed the suit for a division of the suit properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to them on the following allegations -' The father of the plaintiffs by name P. K. Ramswami Gounder and the father of the defendants by name P. K. Arumugha Gounder were divided brothers and the suit properties belonged to the families of both. As heads of their respective families, they executed a document on 22-2-1963, styled as a deed of dissolution and partition whereby it was agreed inter alia that the plaintiffs and their two brothers will together have a half share and the defendants together will have the other half share. Neither of the heads of the families took any share th...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Halima Bivi Ammal Vs. S.A. Fatima Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad129; (1987)IIMLJ351
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant S. A. Fatima Bivi Ammal against the judgment and decree dated 12th day of July, 1979 in 0. S. No. 29 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam granting a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff S. A. Fatima Bivi is entitled to 1/8th panga in respect of the suit Items I and 2, half share in respect of suit Items 3 to 12 and for delivery of possession of suit Items 13 to 18, given in the plaint schedule. The division by metes and bounds and the ascertainment of future mesne profits were relegated to the final decree proceedings. One month's time was granted for delivery of possession of Items 13 to 18 of the plaint schedule. In view of the relationship of the parties and in the special circumstances of the case, the parties were directed to bear their own costs in the suit.2. The suit was laid by the plaintiff for partition for 1/8th pangu in respect of items 1and 2.1/2 share in items 3 to 12, for pos...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ganesa Nadar Vs. K. Chellathai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1989Mad8; (1987)IIMLJ25
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is wholly an unsustainable order which is challenged in this revision petition. The order of arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor has been made by the learned Munsif in execution proceedings in which the decree-holder is seeking to recover Rs. 7939-76.2. The only evidence which is produced on behalf of the decree-holder was the evidence of the husband of the decree-holder. It is true that the judgment-debtor himself claimed the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. He has undoubtedly failed to establish that he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that Act. That did not, however, necessarily mean that an order of arrest and detention in civil prison must necessarily follow.3. There is no basis of the evidence of P. W. 1, that the income of the judgment-debtor was Rs. 70,000. On what basis this figure has been given by the witness is not stated; nor has it been clarified by the learned counsel who appears in this court.4. The District ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeevalochanachar Mahant of Uthirathi Srivaishnavite Mutt and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ190
Ramaswami, J.1. The suit was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a scheme for the trust known as Deep Narayandas Trust. The Deed of Trust dated 11th January, 1910 provides that the income from the property should be spent for lighting in Sri Adhikesava Perumal, Sri Bashyakar Temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and for feeding the uttaradhis (persons from north India) during Brahmotsavam and other periods in the year. When the suit was taken up for trial, at the instance of the defendants, issues 1 and 2 relating to the maintainability of the suit were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. The contention of the defendants was that by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), the suit is barred and that if at all the application will have to be made to the Deputy Commissioner for framing the scheme under Section 63 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, did no...
Tag this Judgment!Anbu Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ31
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu Anbu under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed by the second respondent and setting him at liberty.2. The impugned order of detention was passed on 8-1-1986 by the second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, on drawing the subjective satisfaction on the materials placed before him, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the detenu was directed to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Madras.3. Mr. Jagadeesan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would challenge the order of detention on the ground that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case, but he has confused himself about the fact as to whether the detenu was in jail or not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: [1990]182ITR392(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made on the association of persons was not valid since the assessment in the case of the members thereof had been made earlier ' 2. In view of the decision in CIT v. R. Dhandayutham : [1978]113ITR602(Mad) , the question will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and it is answered accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »