Chennai Court September 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.
Ramakrishna and Bros., a Partnership Firm Thro One of Its Partners, M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ404
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before both the forums has preferred this revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows: For the sake of convenience, we will adopt the array of parties before the Rent Controller, in this revision. The petitioner, who is the respondent in this revision, is the landlady, and she has filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition mentioned property on 29.9.1975. The respondent has been occupying the premises for carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 155. The rent is to be paid on the 5th of the next month. The respondent attorned the oral tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition R.C.O.P. 84 of 1978 was filed and it was al...
V. Jayakannan and ors. Vs. V.K. Sampath Alias V.K. Sampathkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ77
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision petition filed by the original defendants arises out of an order made by the IV Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, in an application I.A. No. 7203 of 1986 in O.S. No. 1692 of 1984, holding that having regard to the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, second defendant cannot be examined as a witness at the stage at which the trial of the suit was at the moment.2. The respondent, petitioner in I.A. No. 7203 of 1986, is the plaintiff, has filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to the suit property as a life-estate-holder pursuant to the settlement deed dated 1.12.1967 executed by his late father Kistappa Chettiar. He has also sought a decree for possession of the suit property. The basis of the claim for declaration and possession is that on 1.12.1967 the deceased Kistappa Chettiar had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and that after his death, the propert...
Janakiammal and ors. Vs. P.A.K. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad88
Srinivasan, J.1. The second appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the first respondent who purchased 9/16th share in the suit properties from defendants 14 to 16 who are respondents 2 to 4. The suit properties consist of two items the first of them being a house and the second a vacant site. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to purchase the share of the plaintiff under Section 4 of the Partition Act.2. The plaintiff is the son of one Kayambu Nadar, whose brother was one Peria Karuppa Nadar. In a partition among the brothers, in 1934, the suit properties and two other items fell to the share of Peria Karuppa Nadar. He died leaving five sons and three daughters in 1960. One of his sons died in 1968 leaving defendants 1 to 4 as his heirs. Another son died in 1980 whose heirs are defendants 5 to 12. Defendants, 13, 17 and 18 are the three daughters of Peria Karuppa Nadar while defendants 14 to 16 are his surviving sons. Peria Karuppa Nadar...
M. Jaya Kumar Vs. the Pallavan Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC5
Swamikkannu, J.1. This appeal is confined to the question of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. It is submitted that the compensation of Rs. 32,000/-, though claimed, was limited to only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that there has been shortening of the right leg of the victim-appeilant by one inch and there is also a permanent disability, caused, so far as the right thigh-bone is concerned. It is further submitted that the driver of the car, namely the injured victim, having lost the capacity of using his leg, has been found to a certain extent incapable of driving because it is only by the use of the legs he can propel the mechanism in a car by application of the brakes as well as accelerating it or applying the clutches. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the argument on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. N.E. Arumugam, is wtithout substance. On the other hand, this Court finds that the Tribunal has given very niggardly sums under the...
Venkateswara and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: [2003]133STC606(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioner has to succeed in this writ petition on a technical plea taken by Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of limitation for initiating action for revision under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent initially issued a notice on March 14, 1980 proposing revision of the assessment for the year 1974-75. That was challenged by way of an appeal, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the notice proposing revision was not at all served on the petitioner and would not amount to a valid notice in the eye of law. Yet, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner chose to remit the matter back to the respondent directing him to issue notice to all the partners of the petitioner inviting their objections and then pass a revised order. Pursuant to this order of t...
Sundari Ammal Vs. Thilakavathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad183; (1988)IMLJ368
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been substantial question of law arising in this second appeal and as such it is a fit case for admission. He submits that both the Courts below have held that the alienation by the father of the minor. of the property which he got by settlement from his younger brother cannot be made without obtaining permission from Court as per the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Section 6 is relised on for this purpose by the learned counsel for the appellant. He also brought to the notice of this Court the provisions of S. 12 of the said enactment in support of his contention. Section 6 reads as follows:S. 6 The natural, guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are - (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl the father, and after him. the mother: provided that the custody ...
Kunchidapatham and ors. Vs. Dhanalakshmy Bus Service and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC449
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioners in M.A.CT.O.P. No. 9 of 1982 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry are the appellants and the two respondents are the respondents herein. Petitioners are the father and mother, wife and minor children of late Sivashanmugham, who died in a motor accident, which took place at 6.10 a.m. on 6-9-1979 at the Junction of Perumalkoil Street and Bharathiar Street at Karaikkal. The bus bearing registration No. PYK 3049 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and consequently Sivashanmugham sustained multiple head injury and succumbed to death. He was treated in General Hospital, Karaikkal from 6-9-1979 to 7-9-1979. He was working as U.D.C. in the General Hospital and drawing a salary of Rs. 650/- per month, and therefore, the compensation was claimed at Rs. 1,25,000/-.2. First respondent opposed this claim by stating that the accident was due to the sudden mechanical failure of...
G. Gopalakrishnan and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: [1988]70STC293(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. These appeals are admitted. 2. These appeals are against the interim orders vacating the injunction earlier issued with a further observation by the learned Judge that in the event of the petitioners-appellants apprehending that they are likely to be arrested, it is open to them to move the appropriate authorities to show that they are not liable to be arrested. 3. The relief sought in the two writ petitions was that respondents 1 to 3 should be restrained by a writ of mandamus from causing the arrest and detention of the petitioners-appellants in a civil person for default in payment of sales tax. The apprehension appears to be that the authorities are taking action to arrest the two petitioners-appellants without following the prescribed procedure. 4. The writ petitions themselves can be disposed of in view of the fair attitude taken by the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). He is not in a position to dispute that before an order of arrest is made, the pr...
Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madurai District V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ80
S.A. Kader, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. 331 of 1971. The 1st defendant-State of Tamil Nadu is the appellant.2. This is a suit for damages. The 1st defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Madurai. The 2nd defendant is the Assistant Engineer and the 3rd defendant is the Junior Engineer, serving under the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the Contractor. It may be mentioned here and now that defendants 2 to 4 have been impleaded subsequently. The plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing door No. 25, Obla Kobla Padithurai Road in T.S. No. 1215 in Ward No. 4 in Madurai Town. Immediately north of the plaintiff's property runs the Panaiyur irrigation channel. The northern wall of the plaintiff's property abutting the channel is a pucca one constructed with rubble stones, cement and lime mortar to prevent erosion by the waters of the channel. The 1st defendant started construction of a regu...
C.M. Visalakshi and ors. Vs. K. Kuppusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad27
ORDERRamalingam, J. 1. Applicants 1 to 4 who, are plaintiffs 2 to 5 in CS. 251/87 have filed this application under Section 32 of the Advocates Act read with Order XIV, Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules, seeking permission for Mr. A. V. Raman a family friend and Power of Attorney Agent of the Plaintiffs, to appear and plead on their behalf in the suit, under the, following circumstances:2. Sethulakshmi, the sole respondent herein, is the second defendant in the suit. She filed O.S. No. 1681/67 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against one C.M. Balusamy, first plaintiff in the suit, for declaration of certain property described in 'B' Schedule to the plaint. She also asked for delivery of possession of portions of properties marked as red and green forming part of 'B' Schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the appeal, AS. 7/75 filed by Balusamy was dismissed on 21-10-1975. The second appeal, SA. 510/76 preferred by him was also di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »