Chennai Court March 1987 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.
R. Jayaraman Vs. A. Perumal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ19
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals are against the order setting aside the dismissal of C.S. No. 139 of 1983 as settled out of Court and restoring the same for trial on merits.2. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell by the first respondent-plaintiff who was then a minor, represented by his guardian and next friend, his mother.3. On 22.11.1984, on the basis of a memorandum filed by the plaintiff, stating that the suit claim is settled out of Court the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. This memorandum was signed by the guardian of the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no application was filed under Order 32, Rule 7, C.P.C., either by the guardian or by the advocate praying permission to withdraw the suit on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise, nor a certificate by the advocate to, the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed was, in his opinio...
Kanta P. Mehta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: [1989]177ITR284(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This order will govern W.A. No. 248 of 1987 which is listed for admission and W.P. No. 4818 of 1982 which is taken up for hearing since we found that there was really no substance in the writ petition. 2. The appellants-petitioners are the legal representatives of late Pravin J. Mehta. It is enough to mention that in respect of the asst. yr. 1967-68, a sum of Rs. 4,70,844 was added to the income of the original petitioner on the ground that he was not able to explain satisfactorily the source for the purchase of 315.81 carats of diamonds of alleged foreign origin which were valued by the customs authorities at that figure. Finally, however, in the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 3,70,844 on the basis of the presumption that could be the price at which he must have purchased the diamonds. 3. The assessee i.e., deceased Pravin J. Mehta had asked for a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 referring substantially the questio...
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Chelliah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ511
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, is O.S.No. 69 of 1977. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. This is a suit for partition and separate possession and for accounts. The plaint averments are briefly as follows: The A schedule to the plaint is the genealogical table. One Mookka Goundar had two sons by name Perianna Gounder and Arunachala Goundar through his predeceased first wife Chellayeeammal. There was an oral partition among him and his sons in which the B schedule properties were allotted to the father Mookka Goundar. This oral partition was confirmed by a registered deed dated 19-8-1928. Subsequently the said Mookka Goundar wanted to marry one Kamakshi Ammal as his second wife and executed in her favour a premarital settlement on 7-7-1928, settling the B schedule properties on her. She was to enjoy the properties without any power of alienation and if she died issueless then the properties would revert...
K.S.D. Radhakrishnan Vs. Deivanai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ249
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 3821 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,050 being the principal of Rs. 5,000 and interest due under a promissory note, dated 1-5-1975. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend the suit on the ground that he has got a counterclaim. Since that petition for leave to defend was filed out of time and the delay was not excused, that petition was dismissed and the suit was decreed as prayed for, by judgment and decree dated 21st February, 1977. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application for attachment before judgment of the debtor's property, namely Door No. 17/1 (New Door No. 30, Devadi Street, Mylapore, Madras-4, in I.A. No. 10450 of 1975 and obtained an order of attachment before judgment on 2-2-1977, which beca...
Mrs. Kanta P. Mehta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Mad)276
M. N. Chandurkar, C.J. - This order will govern W.A. No. 248 of 1987 which is listed for admission and W.P. No. 4818 of 1982 which is taken up for hearing since we found that there was really no substance in the writ petition.2. The appellants-petitioners are the legal representatives of late Pravin J. Mehta. It is enough to mention that in respect of the asst. yr. 1967-68, a sum of Rs. 4,70,844 was added to the income of the original petitioner on the ground that he was not able to explain satisfactorily the source for the purchase of 315.81 carats of diamonds of alleged foreign origin which were valued by the customs authorities at that figure. Finally, however, in the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 3,70,844 on the basis of the presumption that could be the price at which he must have purchased the diamonds.3. The assessee i.e., deceased Pravin J. Mehta had asked for a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 referring substantially the question...
Ashok Kumar Goyal Vs. Manager, E.S.i Corporatoin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1084
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order of retrial by the accused who is the Managing Partner of an industrial concern. The charge against him, as per the complaint filed by the respondent herein is that he has failed to submit the return of contribution cards in Form 6 together with the Contribution cards for the set C ending on 29-5-1982, which return and cards should 'have been submitted by him on or before 10-7-1982. Thus, he would have become guilty of the offences under Section 85(g) and (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Section 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950. The date of the offence, as per the complaint, is 11-7-1982. The trial court, viz, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, by judgment dt. 5-7-1983 did not give any finding that the accused had failed to submit the returns and cards referred to in the complaint but gave a finding that the accused...
A. Subbiah Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Social ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad355
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. 8919 of 1985. The writ petition was filed by the appellants praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction and to quash the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 1127 Social Welfare Department, dated 16-5-1985. That Government Order was issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (here in after referred to as the Act). The writ petition relates to the appellants' lands in Survey No. 197 to 197/9, in measuring 3.06 acres, which was notified under S. 4(1) of the Act for acquisition on the ground that it was needed for provision of house sites for Adi Dravidars of Pillupati, village, hamlet of Nallur, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli Dist. The impugned Government Order is the declaration under S. 6 of the Act relating to the same.2. When notice was issued for an enquiry under S. 5A of the Act, the appellants objected to the acquisition o...
Tnanikachalam and anr. Vs. Official Receiver, Chengalpattu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad272
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. It appears that one Munusami Mudaliar, Kandasami Mudaliar and Balasundara Mudaliar. All the said three brothers were, on an application by a creditor, adjudged insolvents for the debts alleged to have been contracted for the benefit of the joint family by the joint family manager Kannappa Mudaliar. Subsequently, the joint family properties were brought to sale by the Official Receiver and one of the items of the properties was sold and purchased by the 7th defendant in the suit. The two plaintiffs herein are the sons of Kandasami Mudaliar. It appears they filed O.S. 301 of 1970 on the file of the district Munsiff Court, Kancheepuram for declaration of the title and for delivery of possession of the suit properties on the allegation that the properties belonged to their grandfather Munuswami Mudaliar and he had executed an will in their flavor. They also filed another suit O.S. 741 of 1971 on the file of the said Court for d...
T.K. Sundaram Vs. the Cooperative Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad167
1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether under S. 74 of the Contract Act, lh72 in case of breach of contract the amount of compensation mentioned in the agreement is payable or the plaintiff is bound to prove the actual damage that can be recovered from the defaulter. The appellant in this case on 3-3-1970, as per the agreement Ex. A- 1, agreed to supply to the respondent company 125 tonnes of sugarcane grown by him in an extent of 5 acres of land in S.F. Nos. 5S2,' 1 and 610 in Kurudamapalayani village, Coimbatore Taluk, during 1970-71 main season commencing from 15-10-1970. According it) the agreement Ex.A-1 the appellant also agreed to pay a penalty of Rs. 50 per tonne of sugarcane not supplied to the respondent company. According to the plaint allegations the appellant did not supply the sugarcane as agreed and the respondent company has suffered a greater loss than the penalty payable. It is also alleged that the suit was laid to recover only the penalty...
State Vs. Subramanian (A-1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1403
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The above appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Myladuthurai in C.C. 180 of 1981 convicting the respondent herein for an offence under Section 406, I.P.C. instead of under Section 409, I.P.C. holding that the respondent, who is the President of the Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society, is not a Public Servant under the I.P.C.2. The respondent and another were tried by the above court for an offence under Section 409, I.P.C. in that the respondent, being the President and his co-accused since acquitted, being the Secretary to the Anathandavapuram Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society and being public servants and being entrusted in that capacity with the sum of Rs. 8826-40 criminally misappropriated the same.3. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 20 were marked. The respondent and his co-accused denied the occurrence. They had no evidence to offer.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »