Chennai Court April 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.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mariasamy Nadar and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: II(1989)ACC503
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the second respondent M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., against the Award dated 24-12-1980 in claim Petition No. 61 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal. (Second Additional District Judge) Tirunelvell, finding that the accident was due to rashness of the driver and the negligence of the conductor and also finding that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-has to be awarded to the petitioners before the Tribunal and that each petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and that the petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. Advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 500.2. The petition was filed by Mariasamy Nadar and Gnanamaniammal who are the first and second respondents in this appeal under Section 110A (I) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under praying to grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss of life of one Jeyaraj, aged about 24 years3...
Pujamma and ors. Vs. G. Rajendra Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC385; (1987)2MLJ214
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners (1) Pujamma, (2) Krishna Reddy and (3) Nagaraj against the award dated 10.10.1980 in M.O.P. No. 121/79 which was disposed of by a common judgment along with M.O.P. No. 304/79 finding that the lorry APC 5587 was proceeding on the left side of the road and was proceeding towards Bangalore and that the lorry MYK 5890 ought to have proceeded on the northern side of the road; but it went on the wrong side and hit against the lorry APC 5587. Therefore, the lorry MYK 5890 was driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident and as such point No. 1 in M.O.P. No. 121/79 was found accordingly. Under the same circumstances, the Tribunal also found that the lorry APC 5587 was not driven rashly and negligently and there was no composite negligence. It was found on point No. 2 in M.O.P. No. 121 of 1979 accordingly. In M.O.P. No. 121 of 1979, the award of which is the subject matter of appe...
Managing Director Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Chinnamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: II(1990)ACC562
Swamikannu, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 26th day of March 1987 upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. K. Venkataraman for M.V. Natarajan, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:This appeal by the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram, is directed against the Award dated 22.9.1979 in claim Petition No. 275 of 1978 on the file of the Motor Accidents claim Tribunal, Cuddalore, which was disposed of by a common order along with claim Petition No. 312 of 1978.2. claim Petition No. 275 of 1978, out of the order in which the present appeal has arisen, was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, befor...
Kothari (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Mad)73; [1989]177ITR538(Mad)
1. There was a regular order of assessment under section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (V of 1955) (hereinafter referred or as the Act), suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent on April 18, 1977. That order of assessment was rectified pursuant to the powers reserved for the respondent under section 36(1) of the Act, on February 25, 1980. That was within the time prescribed. By the impugned order dated December 11, 1980, the respondent exercised the power of rectification over the order passed on February 25, 1980. Section 36(1) of the Act is unambiguous in its terms when it states that the power of rectification is available to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer over an assessment order and that too within three years from the date of such order. We are not concerned here with a refund order. The order passed on February 25, 1980. Is certainly not an order of assessment and it would be stretching the explicit language of the statutory prov...
K. Anbazhagan and ors. Vs. the Secretary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad275
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are members of the Tamil Nadu Legiaslative Assembly. The Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly passed resolution on 22nd December, 1986 declaring that the petitioners were unfit to continue as members of the House and that they were expelled from the membership of the House and that they could not continue to be members of the House. It was further resolved that their seats became vacant. The resolution passed by the Assembly was on a motion moved by the Leader of the House. The English translation of the resolution original of which was in Tamil as adopted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 22nd December, 1986 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary of the same date, reads as follows: -'Whereas the Executive Committee of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam resolved in its meeting held on 9th November, 1986 at Coimbatore that the portion of Part XVII of the Constitution of India which provides for Hindi t...
P. Sulochana and ors. Vs. M. Vinayagam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: I(1990)ACC233
Swamikkannu, J. 1. This appeal coming on for hearing on Monday the 23rd day of March, 1987 upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.N. Viswanatha Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of Mr. R. Vedantham, Advocate for the 1st Respondent and of Mr. A. Devanathan, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent the Court made the following Order:2. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the petitioners against the Award dated 3.1.1981 passed in M.O.P. No. 150 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub court), Chengalpattu, passing an award for Rs. 16,400/- infavour of petitioners/appellants 1,5 and 6 with proportionate costs and dismissing the petition against petitioners 2 to 4/appellants 2 to 4. The Tribunal also found that the 6th petitioner/appellant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- out of the compensation awarded; and petitioners/appellants 1 ...
Nagarajan and ors. Vs. Annammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ443
Sengottuvelan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 4 to 7 in O.S. No. 1140 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif of Thirupattur, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvannamalai in A.S. No. 84 of 1975.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Rajammal, the mother of Annammal the respondent herein filed the suit, O.S. No. 1140 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif of Thiruppattur for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her possession of the suit properties. According to the plaint averments, Rajammal got the properties from her husband Kuppa Gounder by means of two sale deeds marked as Ex.A4 in respect of items 1 to 4 dated 12.8.1933 and Ex.A5 in respect of items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule dt.30.6.34 such, that she had been in absolute possession and enjoyments that of the same and the defendants have no manne...
Periyar Self-respect Propaganda Institution, Trichy and ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad27
ORDER1. In these three writ petitions, the challenge is of the constitutional vires of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 27 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 19175. The petitioner-in W.P. No. 92 of 1979 is the Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, Tiruchirappali, hereinafter referred to as the Institution, represented by its Life Secretary K. Veeramani. This Institution is a Society already registered under the Societies Registration, Act 21 of 1860, hereinafter referred to as Act 21 of 1860. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3427 of 1979 is the Periyar Maniammal Educational and Charitable Society, hereinafter referred to as the Charitable Society, represented by its life President K. Veeramani. The Charitable Society is also one already registered under Act 21 of 1860. The petitioner in W. P. No. 12371 of 1984 is a life member of the Institution.2. The petitioners express a grievance that by the enactment and enforcement of Tamil Nadu A...
M.N. Ravichandran Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ97
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred as a public cause litigation. The petitioner in his affidavit states that he is a citizen of India by birth. He knows only English and Tamil and no other language. He is an Advocate by profession practising in the High Court of Madras. As, a responsible citizen of the country and to discharge his fundamental duty enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution, he is filing this writ petition for a declaration that the Official Languages Act of 1963 is unconstitutional to the extent it authorises the use of regional Hindi as found in Schedule VII as one of the Official languages by its vague definition of Hindi under Section 3 instead of authorising the Hindi of All India character as per the requirement of Article 351 of the Constitution for the purpose of official use of the right type of Hindi as mentioned in Article 343(1) of the Constitution. The Constitution of India has given a special directive under Article 351 as to how ...
C. Selvakumar Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT207(Mad)
ORDER1. All these writ petitions are filed for writ of mandamus, for bearing the respondents from levying and collecting customs duty on the goods imported by the petitioners in pursuance of the Customs Notifications No. 40 of 1987, dated 4-2-1987, and directing the respondents to release the goods. 2. In all the four writ petitions, the facts are similar and the points raised are the same. For the sake of convenience of narration and discussion. I shall take up W.P. No. 2951 of 1987 first. 3. W.P. No. 2951 of 1987 : The writ petitioner is an importer of pulses for domestic consumption. In accordance with the import policy of the Government of India as published for the period April 1985 to March 1988, all eligible importers are required to register their contracts with the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED). In keeping with this, the petitioner had also registered his name and for the past over two years, the petitioner had been importing pulses. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »