Chennai Court October 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.
Yousufi Sait and Sons Represented by Its S.M. Sait Vs. A. Shafeeq Aham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ446
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a revision petition by the tenant-firm against the order of the Rent Control authorities directing Its eviction from the ground floor of premises bearing door No. 33, Varadarajulu Naidu St, Hunters Road, Madras-7.2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition in the Court of Small Causes, Madras on the allegation that the first floor of the said premises was In the occupation of the respondent and it was kept under lock for the purpose of occupying the entire building for his own use and occupation as he requires the entire building for his own use and occupation. The tenant is in occupation of the ground floor. Indeed he was already in occupation when the building was purchased by the landlord in 1966. Stating that he (respondent) was married on 16.7.1978 and that though he was staying along with his parents, he now wanted to set up a separate house and stay independently the landlord claimed that he required the entire building for his occupation.3. ...
M.C.T. Sethuraman Nadar Vs. M.S. Manickavel Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ57
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order made in E.P. Nos. 9 and 15 of 1985 in O.S. No. 103 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.2. C.R.P. No. 1236 of 1986 is against E.P. No. 9 of 1985 in O.S. No. 103 of 1957. The execution petitioner was the 9th defendant and the respondent was the 4th defendant. The suit was one for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 5.3.1960. The execution petition was for delivery of item 13 concerned in the suit and it was allotted to the 9th defendant. The contention of the respondent/4th defendant was that the execution petition is barred by the law of limitation. His contention is that a final decree was passed in the suit on 18.8.1966 and the starting point of limitation was from the date of final decree, and this execution petition filed on 26.4.1985 is clearly barred by the law of limitation and that the execution petitioner has lost his right to item 13.3. A reply statement was fi...
N.A.P. Alagiri Raja and Company Vs. N. Guruswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas758(Mad); (1987)IMLJ333
V. Ramaswami, J.1. O.S.A. No. 73 of 1985 has been filed against the order in Company Application No. 56 of 1985 dated March 29, 1985, in which the learned single judge directed the convening of three meetings (1) of the shareholders, (2) of unsecured creditors and (3) of preferential creditors on an application filed by one of the contributories under section 391 of the Companies Act. The other two appeals, OSA Nos. 120 and 121 of 1985, have been filed against the order in Company Applications Nos. 261 and 305 of 1985. These two applications were filed by the lessee of the company, one praying for sale of the mill and the other for a direction to the official liquidator to continue the lease in his favour until further orders in the application filed for sale of the mill as a running unit. Both these applications were dismissed on the ground that Application No. 56 of 1985 filed by the contributory for a direction to call for a meeting has been ordered. 2. Palani Shri Murugan Textiles ...
Muthian Vs. Syndicate Bank, Pollachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad248; [1989]65CompCas333(Mad); (1988)IMLJ45
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in O.S. No. 174 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24-9-1979, decreeing the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,533.55p. said to be due on a promissory note dated 16-2-1970 executed by the defendants in favour of the respondent Bank, for Rs. 22,900/- repayable with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum.2. The appellants have restricted their dispute in the appeal to a sum of Rs. 7,000/admitting their liability to pay the balance of Rs. 5,533.55 P.3. The case of the respondent Bank before the lower Court is as follows : - For purchase of a tractor, trailor and their accessories, the first defendant Muthian got a loan of Rs. 22,900/- from the respondent-Bank and he and the second respondent as his surety, executed a promissory note under Exhibit Al for the said amount in favour of the respondent Bank on 16-2-1970, agreeing to repay the said loan with int...
S. Ramalingam Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. J. Prasanna Chandraseka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad140
ORDER1. This application is filed by the petitioning creditors under S. 90(4) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, for permission to amend the cause title and para (1) of the petition by substituting the names! of the three surviving partners Baburam Gagoria, Mamchand Gagoria and Subashchand Gagoria in the place of the deceased partner Kailashchand Gagoria.2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application by one of the partners that at the time of filing the Insolvency Petition for administering the estate of the deceased-debtor under S. 108 of the Insolvency Act, his brother's name was shown in the cause title as representing the firm. His brother Kailashchand Gagoria died at Madras on 18-8-1986. It is further averred that the names of all the partners are given in the Insolvency Petition in para (1). Since the respondent's counsel has taken an objection that the partner, who represented the firm died, the matter cannot be proceeded further unless the othe...
N.A.P. Alagiri Raja and Company, Represented by Its Managing Partner P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ333
V. Ramaswami, J.1. O.S.A. No. 73 of 1985 has been filed against the Order in Company Application No. 56 of 1985, dated 29-3-1985 in which the learned single judge directed the convening of three meetings (1) of the shareholders, (2) of unsecured creditors and (3) of preferential creditors on an application filed by one of the contributories under Section 391 of the Companies Act. The other two appeals O.S.A. Nos. 120 and 121 of 1985 have been filed against the Order in Company Application Nos.261 and 305 of 1985. Those two applications were filed by the lessee of the Company, one praying for a sale of the Mill and the other for. a direction to the Official Liquidator to continue the lease in his favour until further Orders in the application filed for sale of the Mill as a running unit. Both these applications were dismissed, on the ground that the Application No. 56 of 1985 filed by the contributory for a direction to call for a meeting has been Ordered.2. Palani Sri Murugan Textiles ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Angusamy Chettiar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC341(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. As per the notification and the earlier history of the notifications relating to vegetables, there was no dispute that if it was green garlic it would be considered as a vegetable and exempted. In this case, the Tribunal pointed out that it was not the plea of the Revenue that the garlic in question is both dried and dehydrated. If that was so, certainly the exemption provision will apply. 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the decision in M. R. Arumuga Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1984] 56 STC 53 which related to a consideration of red ripe fruit chillies which was considered as not vegetable. In fact the discussion shows that far from helping the Revenue it supports the view of the Tribunal that green garlic cannot be considered to be not a vegetable. Apart from this, we are concerned with the notification which exempted only dried and dehydrated vegetables from the definition of 'vegetables' and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the order...
K. Palaniappa Gounder Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad156; (1987)IIMLJ296
1. This-second appeal is filed by the defendant in 0.S. No. 552 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Erode, passed in A.S. No. 106 of 1983.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows the respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 552 of 1976, on the file of the District Munsif Erode, against the appellant herein for possession of the suit property, payment of mesne profits and for costs. In the plaint the respondent herein alleged that her absolute title to the suit property has been declared by the Court in O.S. No. 883 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, in which the 'appellant herein was the defendant. The said suit was filed by the respondent for declaration of her title and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession and the Court declared the rights of the respondent but negative the claim of injunction ...
K. Palanippa Gounder Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ296
Sengottuvelan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 552 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Erode, passed in A.S. No. 106 of 1983.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 552 of 1976, on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, against the appellant herein for possession of the suit property, payment of mesne profits and for costs. In the plaint the respondent herein alleged that her absolute title to the suit property has been declared by the Court in O.S. No. 883 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, in which the appellant herein was the defendant. The said suit was filed by the respondent for declaration of her title and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession and the Court declared the rights of the respondent but negatived the ...
P.K. Venkateswaran Vs. V.R. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad143; (1987)IMLJ22
ORDER1. This a petition by three creditors to adjudge the respondent as insolvent under Ss. 9(d)(ii) and (iii), 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. According to the petitioners, the respondent borrowed from the 1st petitioner a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 11-9-1980 bearing interest at 24% per annum; a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 6-2-1982 bearing interest at 30% per annum, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 9-11-1983, bearing interest at 30% per annum and another sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 30-10-1983, bearing interest at 30% per annum; in all, the respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs. 42,000/- from the l st petitioner. He has borrowed from the 2nd petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,500/- on 22-12-1982 with interest at 36% per annum; a sum of Rs. 65,000/- on 1-10-1983 with interest at 36% per annum; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 19-10-1983, with interest at 42% per annum; a sum of Rs. 21,000/- on 9-1-1984, with interest at 12% per annum; a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on 25-5-19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›