Chennai Court November 1986 Judgments
Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas439(Mad)
ORDER1. These three revisions arise out of a common order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras on 17-3-1986 in three criminal revision cases, viz., 34, 35 and 36 of 1986 on his file. These revision petitions came before him under the following circumstances. 2. As per S. 45-S(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, No. 2 of 1934, as it stands amended now, hereinafter referred to as the Act, no person, being an individual or a firm or an unincorporated association of individuals shall, at any time, have deposits from more than 25 depositors in the case of an individual, and from more than 25 depositors per partner subject to a maximum of 250 depositors in all, in the case of a firm, excluding in either case depositors who are relatives of the individual or any of the partners. Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Finance and Industrial Investments, 158 Commander-in-chief Road, Madras 105, and Asian Integrated Finance and Industrial Corporation, 95 Mount Road, Madras 2 are two...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR658(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J.1. These three revisions arise out of a common order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, on March 17, 1986, in three criminal revision cases, viz., 34, 35 and 36 of 1986, on his file. Those revision peitions came before him under the following circumstances. 2. As per section 45S(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), as it stands amended now, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', no person, being an individual or a firm or an unincorporated association of individuals shall, at any time, have deposits from more than twenty-five depositors in the case of an individual, and from more than twenty-five depositors per partner subject to a maximum of 250 depositors in all, in the case of firm, excluding in either case depositors who are relatives of the individuals or anyu of partners. M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidated Finance and Industrial Investments, 158, Commander-in-Chief Road, Madras-105, and Asian Integrated Finances and Industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam Vs. S. Ameer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ326
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. The above civil revision petitions are filed by the proposed defendant in the suit O.S. No. 418 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry in I.A. Nos. 1875 and 1877 of 1986.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 418 of 1986 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000 which was alleged to have been advanced by the first respondent to the second respondent for the purchase of the rights of the picture called Raja Rishi. The suit is one for recovery of simple money claim filed; by the first respondent against the second respondent.3. The first respondent subsequently filed I.A. No. 1757 of 1986 under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. for attachment of prints of the pictures Raja Rishi. Meendum Pallavi and Solai Pushpangal before judgment on the allegation that the said pict...
Tag this Judgment!Kanya Textiles Traders by Proprietor, V. Sundaram Vs. C.R. Arunachalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ384
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order in E.A. No. 370 of 1983 in E.P. No. 527 of 1979 in O.S. No. 372 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The decree holder is the revision petitioner. The respondent claimant filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., to raise attachment effected by the revision petitioner decree holder. According to the respondent, he purchased the property which is the subject-matter of the claim petition, on 4.10.1979. The order for attachment was made on 8.3.1979. That claim petition was dismissed as the purchase of the property was subsequent to the attachment. The first respondent filed an appeal A.S. No. 131 of 1981, which also met with the same fate. He has now filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., and along with that filed an application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as to exclude the period during which he has been prosecuting the: ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramar Muthuraja Vs. M. Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad202; (1987)IMLJ449
ORDER1. The important question that arises in this petition is about the validity of delivery of the mmovable property effected in the interregnum between the date of the expiry of the conditional order of stay of execution of the decree on payment of a certain amount and the date of the subsequent order extending time for payment of the said amount.2. The petitioner herein has filed the above second appeal No. 81 of 1986 against the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent for delivery of possession of the suit property and for future mesne profits. Along with the appeal the petitioner filed C.M.P. 716 of 1986 for an order of stay of execution of the decree till the disposal of the appeal. On 19-2-1986 Shanmukham J. passed the following order -'There will be stay on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 8000 to the credit of the suit in the trial court within 8 weeks from this date and a further sum of Rs. 2000 on or before 16 weeks from ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India, Madras Vs. Venkateswara Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad221
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.A.O. No. 612 of 1977, which has reversed the order of the Third Asst. City Civil Court Judge, Madras dated 17-9-1977 and made in I.A. 26126 of 1976 in O.S.No. 7545 of 1976.2. The respondent in this appeal filed O.S.No. 7545 of 1976 against two canteen contractors who were running a canteen in , Madras Fertilizers Complex at Manali. The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12100 being the price payable for the rice supplied to the canteen contractors who will hereafter :be referred to as the defendants. The supplies were effected during the period from 9-12-1975 to 2-6-1976. Then defendants had 'borrowed money from the appellant-Bank and had on 16-5-1975 executed an agreement hypothecating the goods, machineries, book debts and other assets. The hypothecation extends to 'all the borrowers, present and future book debts, outstanding moneys, receivables, claims bills,...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Srinivasan Vs. S. Jayabalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ317
ORDERPadmini Jesudarai, J.1. This revision is by the unsuccessful plaintiff who as the chief tenant of the building belonging to a 'public trust sought the ejectment of his sub-tenant and whose suit was dismissed on the ground that the exemption granted under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, would be available only in an action for eviction initiated by the public trust itself.2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are briefly as follows: The petitioner as chief tenant of certain premises belonging to a public religious institution, namely, Arulmigu Varadaraja Manavala Munikal temple sought the ejectment of the respondent herein who was the sub-tenant to whom a notice terminating the tenancy had been duly given.3. The suit was resisted by the respondent inter alia questioning the validity of the plaintiff's claim that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the case, but that the exemption granted under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Building...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief General Manager State Bank of India Vs. the Presiding Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ66Mad; (1991)IIMLJ93
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition, we have to deal with the claim of the workmen of the State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, for customary bonus. I find that the workmen have been referred to as 'awardstaff', but in order to avoid any ambiguity, I would prefer to refer to such claimants for customary bonus as 'workmen' in this order. Their agitation for such bonus was the subject matter of a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the first-respondent in I.D. No. 32 of 1982. The questions referred for adjudication to the first respondent ran as follows : '(a) Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in stopping the payment of one month's basic wages as drawn on 30th June, and 31st December, respectively by way of bonus annually with effect from the second half of 1975 is justified. If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to (award staff) (b) Are the members of the award staff of State Bank of India entitled to receive annual bonu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sulochana Ammal Vs. Smt. Baby Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ165
Sengottuvelan, J.1. This reference made by Swamikkannu, J. involves the interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 31 of 1976, which is as follows-6. Debtors to apply In certain cases; (1) A debtor referred to in Clause (f) of Section 4 may make an application to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the area within which such debtor ordinarily resides, for an order releasing the mortgaged property and for the grant of a certificate pf redemption:Provided that, no application shall be made under this Sub-section after the 13th day of December 1979, and every application for an order releasing the mortgaged property and for the grant of certificate of redemption shall be made in accordance with and within the time specified in Sub-section (1A).(1A)(a) and (b) ....(c) Every such application shall be made before the expiry of the period of twelve months from 13th day of December, 1979 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date...
Tag this Judgment!A. Perumal Vs. R. Jayaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad115; (1987)IIMLJ19
ORDER1. Application No. 89 of 1985 was origin ally filed by the plaintiff in the suit C.S. 139/83 namely . Minor Perumal represented by his guardian and next friend his mother A. Rajeswari (since declared as major) against the defendants in the suit for setting aside the order dated 22-11-84 in C.S. 139/83 dismissing the suit, and for restoration of the suit to the file of the Original Side of this Court. Application No. 1739/86 is filed by the first defendant in the suit C.S. 139/83 to dismiss the Application No. 89/85 on the ground that it is not maintainable. Since both the applications are connected, both are taken up together for disposal and the parties are referred to as per their rank in Application No. 89 of 1985. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:- The applicant filed the suit C.S. 139/83 for specific performance on the basis of an agreement by which the first respondent/first defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the applicant for a sale price of Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »