Chennai Court August 1987 Judgments
Vathapa Gounder and ors. Vs. Thambayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ67
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O.S. No. 100 of 1976. The defendants 1 and 6 to 8 are the appellants.2. This is a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property after cancelling the deed of partition dated 22.8.65 and for possession with mesne profits, past and future from defendants 1 to 8. The plaint averments are briefly as follows: The plaintiff, who is the wife of the 9th defendant and the mother of the 10th defendant purchased the suit property of an extent of 9.04 acres in S. No. 323/2 of Chathrapatti village Palani Taluk from defendants 6 to 8, who are father and sons for a sum of Rs. 6,000 by and under a registered deed of sale dated 17.7.53. In, pursuance of the said deed of sale the plaintiff was duly put in possession of the suit property. The suit land is situate in Charthrapatti village, which formed part of a zamin estate, which was taken over by the Government under t...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhanalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC223
Swamikkannu, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on this day, 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. K.S. Narasimhan advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. V. Radhakrishnan Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4 and of Mr. G.K. Selvarajan Advocate for the 5th respondent and notice to the 6th Respondent having been dispensed with, the court made the following order:2. United India Insurance Company, Trichy, third respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal. Petitioners 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal. Nizam Tobacco Company first respondent before the Tribunal is the fifth respondent before the Tribunal is the fifth respondent herein. S. Kumarasamy-sixth respondent before the Tribunal is, the sixth respondent herein. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10 9-1981 in M.A.C.O.P. No. 349 of 1930 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tr...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC538
Swamikkannu, J.1. United India Insurance Company, Trichy, third respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal. Petitioners 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal. Nizam Tobacco Company-first respondent before the Tribunal is the fifth respondent herein S. Kumarasamy-sixth respondent before the Tribunal is the sixth respondent herein. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10-9-1981 in M.A.C.O.P. No. 349 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in a petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for the death of the deceased Raju in a motor vehicle accident on 8-4-1980 at about S.30 p.m.2. The case of the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 herein before the Tribunal is as follows: The first respondent herein is the widow and the second respondent herein is the minor child of the deceased Raju. Respondents 3 and 4 herein are the parents of the deceased. The deceased Raju was doing business and was a sale agent for the chewing to...
Tag this Judgment!V. Jayaraj Vs. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ38Mad
1. Applicant is the appellant. This an appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras, in W.C. Case No. 75 of 1979 filed by the appellant, granting a compensation of Rs. 5,880/- to the appellant to be paid by the opposite party viz., the respondent herein, for the injury sustained by the appellant during and in the course of his employment under the respondent herein. 2. The appellant herein filed the application claiming compensation alleging that previously he was working in the State Transport Department since 1969, that his services were taken over by the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation in the year 1976, that he was employed as a conductor in the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation and was working in the Madras Branch, that during 1978 he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 430/-, that on 11th June 1978 he was on duty in Bus route No. 174 and he was proceeding as a conductor in the bus bearing Registration No. ...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Ramani Vs. S.R. Vasudevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ264
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. Appeal against order in O.P. No. 191 of 1980. This is an appeal preferred by the first-respondent V.S. Ramani against the award in O.P. No. 191 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (5th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by the first-respondent-appellant herein and passing an award for Rs. 11,800. So far as the contention of the second-respondent Insurance Company that the first-respondent V.S. Ramani, the owner of the car, who was driving the same at the time of the accident on 23.9.1979 had no driving licence and there is a violation of the condition of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable, it was held that the second-respondent Insurance Company is not liable. In the result an award for Rs. 11,800 with proportionate costs was passed in favour of the petitioner-first-respondent herein and against the first-respondent-appellant herein....
Tag this Judgment!Raja D.V. Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. C.T. Senthilnathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ252
Srinivasan, J.1. K.C. Rajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in the second appeal and the petitioner in the revision petition submits that a decision in the revision petition will conclude the matter in the second appeal. The question which arises in the revision petition is whether the respondent therein is entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (Act III of 1922) as amended by Act 2 of 1980. If that question is answered in favour of the respondent, S.A.No. 1097 of 1986 has to be dismissed as it arises out of a suit for damages for use and occupation. The Courts below have taken the view that the respondent is a tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act and dismissed the suit.2. In the revision petition, the first contention urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1980 contains an express provision that it comes into force on 9-1-1974. Section 1(2) of Act 2 of 1980 reads thus:The provisions of this Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Nizamuddeen and anr. Vs. Cholan Roadways Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC40
Swamikkannu, J.1. A Tribunal is to be guided by the evidence and not by the pleadings alone, though pleadings may be the basis for putting forth a case, yet when there is a vital contradiction between the evidence and the pleadings the said contradiction can loom to large so as to uphold or reject the evidence. In the instant case, the appellants have put forward a case, according to the respondent herein, which is not pleaded in the petition, that another bus was going ahead of the bus in question viz., TMN 4087. When the existence of the said bus is not also borne out by Ex. B. 1, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the case put forward by the appellants during evidence should not be given credence. It is relevant to note that the case put forward by tbe appellants-parents of the deceased in their petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is that on 1-1-1981 at about 4-05 p.m., while the deceased Shirajudeen was travelling in the scooter driven by one Rajend...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Ganesan and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: [1992]198ITR152(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused Nos. 6 and 7, respectively, in C.C. Nos. 130 to 133 of 1984, pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, Madras, for offences under sections 276CC and 278B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), invoke the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the above proceedings. 2. Facts briefly are : On the allegation that the petitioners are directors of the company, Messrs. Shivaji Films (P.) Ltd. (the First accused in the case), the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 7 along with the other directors of the first accused company in the complaint filed by the respondent herein. 3. During the trial, PWs-1 and 2 had been examined and the case was posted for questioning the accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. At that stage, the petitioners have come to this court to quash the proceedings on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Gopal Engineering Works and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Mad)119; [1988]173ITR206(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The Union of India, represented by the Second Income-tax Officer, City Circle 11. Madras-34, has preferred these revisions under sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore, Madras, in C. C. Nos. 232, 231 and 233 of 1984, discharging the respondents of offences under section 120B read with sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the above sections will not apply since the Income-tax Officer had not been declared to be a court under section 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the revisions are briefly as follows : The first respondent is a registered firm, carrying on the business in manufacturing, purchasing and selling drums and kegs used in painting industry and other materials and had been assessed to income-tax. The other respondents are its partners. For the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.F. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC27
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the question raised relates to the liability to pay on the 'natural rubber' imported for the petitioners, additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act (51 of 1975), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Itemwise 'natural rubber' bears different names and in the present batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with the natural rubber bearing the name 'smoked sheets'. In some cases, the petitioners have paid the additional duty through the State Trading Corporation, which was the agency for the import of this product, since the said product was a canalised one. The State Trading Corporation, when it collected the price from the petitioners, the additional duty was part and parcel of the price paid by the petitioners. In those cases, the petitioners have asked for refund. The petitioners also apprehending levy and collection of additional duty have asked for writs of mandamus to forbear the respondents from so levy...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »