Chennai Court November 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.
K.N. Gangappa and anr. Vs. A.M. Subramanya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad182; (1987)1MLJ256; (1987)IMLJ256
ORDER1. This revision is directed against an order directing arrest of judgment debtors in R.E.P. 483 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif of Gudyatham. On the day when the matter was called the judgment debtors were absent. The Court, acting on the affidavit filed by the decree-holder, found that the judgment debtors have got sufficient means and ordered arrest by 31-1-1986. That order is now challenged on the ground that the Court has not found as a fact that the judgment-debtors have or have had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree, or some substantial part thereof and have refused or neglected to pay the same. There is an inhibition contained in the Proviso to S. 51, C. P. Code. That inhibition applies only to an order for detention in prison and not to an order for arrest. If authority is needed for that proposition it is to be found in Putta Ramiah v. Hajee Ibrahim Esack and Sons, ILR (1958) Mys 869 : AIR 1959 Mys 94. The order of the Cour...
5 No. Beedi Factory Represented by the Managing Partner, V.T.S. Abdul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ287
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Orders, directions or writs as the case may be and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorari after calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent relating to G.O.Ms. No. 8 71, Labour and Employment Department dated 18.4.1980 (filed and marked as Exhibit 'A') quash the said Order dated 18.4.1980 issued by the 2nd respondent (Exhibit 'A')(ii) award costs and render justice.The Government Order referred to in the prayer in the writ petition is one made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 14 of 1947' making the following reference for industrial adjudication to the third respondent:Whether the non-employment, of 53 Beedi Rollers in the Annexure II below is justif...
A. Shanmugham Vs. Lakshmipathy Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad42; (1987)IMLJ320
1. This civil revision raises an important question about the validity of the Madras Proviso to O.21, R.90, C.P.C. of 1908, hrerinafter referred to as the principal Act, as a mended by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976.2. (Order 21, Rule 90(1) of the principal Act runs thus-"Where any immovable property has been told in execution of a decree, the decree holder or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it."To this main provision the following proviso has been added by this Court-"Provided that the Court may, after giving notice to the applicant, call upon him before admitting the application, either to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or that realised by the sale, whichever is less, or to deposit such...
S. Guhan and ors. Vs. Rukmini Devi Arundale and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad1
Sathiadev, J. 1. O.S.A. 113 of 1986 is preferred by three persons of which first appellant is a member of the Executive Committee of Kalakshetra, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the second appellant is a life member of the Society and the third appellant is not only a life member but also member of its Executive Committee. They sought for leave to present the appeal against the judgment in C.S. 716 of 1985 and also to condone the delay in preferring the said appeal in C.M.P. Nos. 935 and 5269 of 1980 and leave was granted on 16-4-1980.2. O.S.A. 192 of 1986 is filed by fourth defendant in C.S. No. 716 of 1985. Both the appeals are preferred against the scheme decree passed in the said suit No. on 20-111985. C.S. 716 of 1986 (A) was filed on the Original Side of this Court under S. 92(1) and 0. VII, R. 1, C.P.C. by three plaintiffs claiming that they are persons having interest in the Trust called 'Kalakshetra'.3. In the plaint, it is stated as follows: -'Kalak...
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. (Metro) Vs. P. Murthy and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1989Mad14
Sengottuvelan, J.1. All the abovesaid four appeals arise out of the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in O.P. No. 275 of 1980 and O.P. No. 318 of 1980.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : --On 10-5-1980, at about 2.30 p.m. the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number M.S.N. 343 while, proceeding from west to east in the Pycrofts Road, and while entering Kamaraj Salai, dashed against the van bearing Registration number T.N.O. 2913, as a result of which, Vijayan, traveling in the van died and the driver of the van Murthy lost his right hand. The said Murthy filed O.P. No. 275 of 1980 claiming a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for loss of his right hand. Similarly, the legal representatives of the deceased, Vijayan, filed O.P. No. 318 of 1980, claiming rupees one lakh as compensation for the loss of support on account of the death of Vijayan. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence in the case, c...
A. Shanmugham Vs. Lakshmipathy Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ320
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This civil revision raises an important question about the validity of the Madras Proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. of 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act, as amended by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976.2. Order 21, Rule 90(1) of the Principal Act runs thus-Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.To this main provision the following proviso has been added by this Court-Provided that the Court may, after giving notice to the applicant, call upon him before admitting the application, either to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or that realised by the sale, whichever is less...
Madras Petrochem Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC236; 1987(11)LC225(Madras); 1987(28)ELT5(Mad)
ORDER1. These two writ petitions require disposal by a common order, because the order in W.P. 4747 of 1983 will have an impact on the point raised in W.P. 5696 of 1980. The prayer in W.P. 5696 of 1980 runs in the following terms :- 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records in Order No. 673-674 of 1980 dated 10th July, 1980 (signed by the first respondent on 30th August, 1980, received by the petitioner on 18.9.1980) and issue a writ of certiorified Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order and quash the said order and direct the third respondent herein to refund the sum of Rs. 16,25,235.00 paid as central excise duty paid under mistake of law and to pass such other and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and render justice.' The prayer in W.P. 4747 of 1983 runs as follows :- For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Honoura...
A. Bhagavathi Ammal and ors. Vs. Sethu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad224; (1987)IMLJ454
1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs Nos. I to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 25-6-1979 in O.S.No. 2 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs which was filed in form a pauperis for maintenance against the defendant/ respondent herein in the following terms : -'1. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 together are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs. 200/- per month from this date from the defendant as maintenance; 2. The defendant shall give Rs. 3,000/towards the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff and for the jewels to be presented to the second plaintiff at the time of marriage; 3. The plaintiffs are entitled to a charge over Items 5 to 11 of the plaint properties in respect of the maintenance amount and marriage expenses decreed; 4. The plaintiffs after fixing the marriage alliance for the second plaintiff should give two months' notice to the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 3,000/- for the m...
Ashok Kumar Luria Vs. Abdul Majeed Ahmed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad325
V. Ramaswanu, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against a common order in Applications Nos. 3444 and 3481 of 1983 in C.S. No. 40 of 1981. The said applications were filed under Section 3 of the Partition Act. 1893.2. The subject matter of these proceedings is the property bearing new door No. 74 Godown Street. G.T. Madras, I and comprised in Collector's Certificate No. 3338, OId Survey No. 3076 and re-survey No. 11057 measuring north-south 42 feet and east-west 134feet. One Perundevi Ammalhad life estate in this property. She died intestate on 17-111972 leaving behind her eight daughters and a son by name Ramakrishnan. There is no dispute that each of. these eight daughters and the son Ramakrishanan had an absolute 1/9th share in the property. Under a sale dee8 dated 10-4-1980 five of the daughters sold their 5/9th share in favor of M/s. H.M. Textiles, Madras. The other three daughters .sold their respective undivided share in favor of three individuals, VIZ ..Abdul Maid Ahmed. ,M...
income-tax Officer Vs. K. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR757(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. On notice of motion, this appeal comes up for admission today. Mr. B. Shanthakumar appear for the respondent. Heard both sides. Appeal admitted. 2. This appeal filed by the revenue is to challenge the correctness of certain statement of law made by the learned single judge in his order under appeal. 3. The writ petition itself was filed by the respondent for a direction that the original will dated January 1, 1977, impounded by him in pursuance of an order dated January 15, 1985, should be returned forthwith to the respondent herein. The learned judge undoubtedly directed return of the will on the respondent furnishing an undertaking that he will produce the original will as and when is called upon to do so and getting a xerox copy of the will on record. But he has made certain observations, which appears to us to be unnecessary, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to go in to the question of the truth or genuineness of the will. These observati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »