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.
Perumal Pillai and ors. Vs. Kuppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ58
V. Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 9 in O.S. No. 331 of 1975, Sub Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in this second Appeal, That suit was laid by the respondents herein praying for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and for directing the appellants to deliver possession of the same and also for* recovery of to sum Rs. 1,000/- towards past profits and future profits at Rs. 350/-per annum.2. The facts leading; to the institution of the suit are as under : According to the respondents, the suit property belonged to Marudachalam Pillai, who obtained it under a registered Will executed by his wife Ponnammal in his favour on 12th July, 1947. In turn, Marudachalam Pillai executed a registered will oh 28th January 1959 be questhing properties in favour of his two sons Nanjappa and Vedamuthu. The suit property described as Kadai Veedu fell to the share of Nanjappa. On the death of Marudachalam Pillai in 1964, Nanjappa took possession of the property and was managing the...
Ganapathi and anr. Vs. Balasubramania Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad124; (1987)IMLJ280
ORDER1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order. Both of them arise out of proceedings in execution of a mortgage decree passed by-this Court in App. No. 15 of 1973 decided on 12th October, 1977.2. One Ayyakannu Gounder who died in March-April, 1959, had two wives. His second wife was Thaiyanayaki Ammal. Through his first wife he had three daughters and one son, viz., Lokambal Ammal, Visalakshi Ammal, Kokilambal Ammal and Thangaraj, who predeceased his father. Thangaraj's son Thanikachalam died on 2-2-1976 leaving behind his widow Mallika and three minor sons. Kokilambal Ammal has two sons Ganapathi and Masilamani. Visalakshi Ammal has a son, Radhakrishnan. On 9-11961 Thaiyanayaki Ammal executed a mortgage on behalf of herself and as guardian of Thanikachalam for a sum of Rs. 30,000 in favour of Balasubramania Gounder. O.S. 50 of 1969 came to be filed by the plaintiff, Balasubramania Gounder in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram for recovery of ...
K.N. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ179
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The proceedings for determination of surplus land under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act (Act 17 of 1970) hereinafter referred to as the Act, were taken by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kancheepuram, in respect of land which the present petitioner claimed did not belong to him but belonged to his daughter, Dhanalakshmi having been bequeathed to her by her grand-father, that is, the petitioner's father, by a will dated 5.6.1984. This land is separately registered in the name of Dhanalakshmi. There is some doubt as to whether Dhanalakshmi's grand-father died on 15.2.1969 or 15.4.1969. Whatever be the date, the grandfather had died before 15.7.1970, which is the relevant date for the purpose of determination of surplus land.2. It appears that in order to create evidence that Dhanalakshmi owned the land in her independent right, a suit came to be filed in the name of minor Dhanalakshmi in the Court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, being O.S. No. 282 o...
Papathi Ammal Vs. Kulitalai Cane Farms (P) Limited by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ162
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. Mr. V. Meenakshisundaram, advocate, had originally entered appearance on behalf of the respondent in both the civil revision petitions. On his death, death memo was issued on the respondent on 18th July, 1985 and the respondent was served with a notice. However, nobody represents the respondent. The respondent when called in Court is absent today.2. The petitioner is the wife of one Ramaswami Reddiar who was the defendant in O.S. No. 539 of 1965, on the file of the District Munsif of Kulitalai. That suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of lease arrears from the petitioner's husband. The arrears claimed is for the period prior to 1964-65. The respondent again filed O.S. No. 199 of 1970 and obtained a decree in respect of arrears payable upto and inclusive of 1969-70. The annual rent payable by the lessee was Rs. 950. It appears that the defendant in the suit filed A.S.No.648 of 1977 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, against the Judgment ...
Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras and ors. Vs. Orient Tools and G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC221; 1987(11)LC653(Madras); 1987(28)ELT262(Mad)
1. This appeal by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the Appellate Collector of Customs and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, is directed against an order of the learned single Judge by which the learned Judge has taken the view that projection bulbs which were component parts of a machinery called Petewe projection from grinding machine model P. 7. S. 3 D fell for the purposes of customs duty under item 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff and not under item 60(2) of the same. The nature of the Goods is clear from an extract given by the manufacturer for both forms of grinding machines which is reproduced by the learned Judge in the order. The bulbs are 100 W. bulbs each of which is priced at Rs. 113. They are obviously and admittedly different from the ordinary bulbs used for lighting, though they are of 100 W. These bulbs are imported and formed a part of the grinding machine which for effective functioning has to be used with the assis...
S. Aiyadurai Nadar Vs. T.R. Sakku Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR161(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order in Application No. 2736 of 1978. The said application was filed by the plaintiff in C. S. No. 10 of 1977 for declaration that the attachment effected by the Income-tax Officer as per his letter No. T.R. 6694 of 1971-72 and 492 of 1977-78 dated April 22, 1978, of the monies standing to the credit of the suit as invalid and not binding on the applicant. The appellant is the plaintiff in C. S. No. 10 of 1977. That was a suit filed by him for a decree against three defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,70,000 with interest from the date of the plaint. The money was advanced to the first defendant and the second and third defendants are the sureties. The suit was decreed on February 15, 1977. In execution of this decree in E. P. No. 38 of 1977, the appellant attached the right, title and interest of the defendants in a picture titled 'Ennaippol Oruvan'. That picture was produced by a firm of producers called Sir Vinayak...
K. Shakul Mameed Vs. Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC25
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Southern Zone) in Appeal No. 367 of 1977 dated 28.7.1980 confirming the order of the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, in his order No. 24 of 1977 dated 17.1.1977 imposing on the 1 appellant a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and confiscating the Indian currency of Rs. 25,000/- seized from the appellant by the Nagore police on 24.3.1973 for violation of the provisions of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The charge against the appellant is that in March 1973, the appellant living at No. 1, South Street, Andakkamudukku, Nagore, a person resident in India, received without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- from a local person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange, by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India, in violation of ...
K. Shanmugha Sundara Nadar Vs. the Special Tahsildar I and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ170
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The prayer originally projected in the writ petition runs as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings culminating in Award No. 8/83, dated 30th April, 1983, and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hononourable Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.W.M.P. No. 11996 of 1986 had been taken to amend the prayer in the following terms:It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records in G.O.Ms. N. 399 Housing Department dated 8th June, 1975 published on 11th June, 1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 981 and the notice under Sec9 of the Act culminating in award No. 8 of 1983 date...
Pudukkulam Alias Kuttikulam Vaharaya Trust by Its Managing Trustee V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1986
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ353
Srinivasan, J.1. The suit out of which these proceedings arise is one for ejectment of a tenant of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to set out all the facts in view of the position that the tenancy is now an admitted one. The only question that is raised in the proceedings is whether the tenant is entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act.2. Prior to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. 1017 of 1973 for recovery of possession against the same tenant. That suit was decreed by the District Munsif's Court, Thanjavur, but when the appeal was pending in the Sub Court, the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act was extended to the area in which the property is situated. On such extension of the Act, the appellate Court took the view that the suit was not maintainable because of the absence of a notice under Section 11 of the Act. The landlord was directed to issue a notice and take fresh proceedings for eviction and the appeal by the tenant was allow...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›