Chennai Court July 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.
Madhumathi Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC170
ORDERMohan, J.1. The writ petition is for habeas corpus under the following circumstances:Information was received by the Madras Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner's husband Vijay Kumar (detenu) and one Hemraj had been unauthorisedly purchasing foreign exchange on a large scale for the last six months and selling the same on profit to one Kondal Rao alias V.K. Raja of Kakkinada as well as certain persons going abroad. The said Kondal Rao had been handing over the said foreign exchange obtained from the detenu and Hemraj to one Shantilal of Kakkinada for purchasing gold. On the basis of this information the officers searched the residential premises of the detenu situated at No. 26, Swamy Pandaram Street, Chintadripet, Madras-2, the residential premises of Hemraj at No. 102, Kalvai Chetty Street, Madras-2 and the business premises of one Srimantkumar, brother of the detenu and co-brother of Hemraj at No. 41, Arunachala Naicken Street, Madras-2 on 14-3-1984. ...
The Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue and anr. Vs. Sri Muthu Ganapad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ221
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the learned single Judge who while dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent, however, made an order which indicated that this was pre-eminently a case in which the Land Commissioner could consider the exercise of his suo motu power of revision under Section 82 read with Rule 62(ii) of the Rules. The respondent herein and the petitioner before the learned single judge is a public religious trust called Sri Muthu Ganapadigal Veda Patasala, Thiruvayyaru (herein referred to as 'the Patasala Trust. Admittedly, the trust owned some agricultural lands to the extent of 14.76 standard acres. In proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 9.76 acres of land was found to be surplus. A final statement came to be made on 7.2.197 9 which was served On the Trust on 14.3.197 9. After the publication of the final statement, a notificatio...
K. Arumugasamy Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Sivakasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT517(Mad)
ORDER1. The facts in this case are very simple. The petitioner obtained a Form L4 licence under the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder for the manufacture of safety matches under name and style of Swastik Match Works which was granted to him on 9.1.1976. It has been renewed from time to time on 30.9.1979, 26.11.1982 and 16.11.1985. As it is, it has its currency till 31.12.1990. It appears that the petitioner has no experience in this line and therefore requests the second respondent in this writ petition to join him. Thereafter, on 3.8.1978, the Swastik Match Works Factory started manufacturing matches. A partnership consisting of four persons was formed on 30.8.1980 consisting of the writ petitioner, his sister, his wife and the second respondent. This partnership was to come into effect on 3.8.1978. The second respondent, on his own, seems to have started four other similar match factories. Thereafter, differences arose between the parties as a result of which on 31.3...
Buhari Sons (Pvt.) Limited, Egmore Vs. the Commissioner of Land Revenu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ18
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner was admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question. Earlier, proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1960 (Act 27 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act'. The petitioner stood evicted from the premises in question and it is accepted that the eviction took place in 1973. Subsequently, proceedings have been initiated for levy of assessment under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act 3 of 1905) hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Encroachment Act'. Initially levy was made by the, third respondent and that was modified' by the Second respondent and the levy was reduced to a considerable extent. Yet the petitioner is not satisfied and he is now before this Court by way of this Writ Petition, impeaching the levy.2. Mr. M.I. Meera Sahib, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would urge a subtle point and that is, the provisions of th...
Karuppayee Ammal Vs. Karuppiah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ138
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of the Judgment that had been delivered by the learned District Judge, Pudukkottai in O.S. No. 5 of 1975 on 24.2.1979, dismissing the suit with costs for the recovery of Rs. 20,840 due under a mortgage and also directing lawyer's fee one set.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant executed the suit mortgage on 10.4.1974 for Rs. 20,000 agreeing to pay interest at 6% per annum payable in two years, that if there was default in the repayment of the amount within the period prescribed, the first defendant should pay compound interest at the same rate with yearly rests, that on the evil advice of the first defendant he had issued a notice as if the mortgage was obtained by fraud and undue influence without any consideration passed, that because of the issue of the notice by the 1st defendant this suit had been filed even though two years time had not elapsed, that the first defendant was a major, that the first defendant appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›