Chennai Court January 1988 Judgments
Philo Peter and anr. Vs. Divyanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad111; (1988)IIMLJ1
1. These two civil Revision petitions are coming before us on a reference being made by one of us, namely, Sathiadev J., to decide the question as to whether Court-fee is payable on one half of the value of the properties, on an application filed under Sections 276 and 222 of the Succession Act, for grant of Probate regarding a Will when the matter becomes contentious.2. The petitioner in C.R.P. 1878 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. 5 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchinapalli, under Sections 276 and 222 of the Succession Act praying for the grant of Probate of the Will of the deceased Ignatious dt. 22-7-1981. Similarly, petitioner in C.R.P. 2052 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. 323 of 1983 praying for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased T. Arokiasami Odayar with his Will dt. 22-11-1982. In both these petitions, the respondents Contested and, therefore, the matter become contentious before the learned Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Philo Peter and anr. Vs. Divyanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ1
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. These two civil revision petitions are coming before us on a reference being made by one of us, namely, Sathiadev, J., to decide the question as to whether court-fees is payable on one half of the value of the properties, on an application filed under Sections 276 and 222 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate regarding a Will when the matter becomes contentious.2. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1878 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. No. 5 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli under Sections 276 and 222 of the Indian Succession Act praying for the grant of probate of the Will of the deceased Ignatious dated 22.7.1981. Similarly, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2052 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. No. 323 of 1983 praying for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased T. Arokiaswami Odayar with his Will dated 22.11.1982. In both these petitions, the respondents contested and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Panduranganathaswami Devasthanam by Trustes and ors. Vs. the Deput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ53
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. Sri Pandur anganathaswami Devasthanam, Shevapet, Salem, by its trustees has come forward with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the respondent viz., the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Coimbatore, to forbear taking any proceedings to appoint to the petitioner temple pursuant to his notice No. 18576/78, dated 31.8.1979. It is INTER ALIA stated in the affidavit sworn to by one of the trustees of the petitioner temple that the petitioner temple was founded and has been managed by the members of the Sourashtra Brahmin Community of Shevapet, Salem, and that it has been declared as a 'Denominational Temple' belonging to the said Community in O.S. No. 429 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, to which the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of Tamil Nadu was the defendant. The respondent/the Deputy C...
Tag this Judgment!Appraiser, Madras Customs Vs. Tamil Nadu Newsprint Papers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT272(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The only question involved in these appeals is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 62/83-Cus., dated 1-3-1983, granting exemption from the whole of the auxiliary duty of customs leviable under sub-clause (1) of clause 45 of the Finance Bill, 1983, with respect to paper-making machinery and component parts thereof imported by the respondent. 2. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies act, with the main object of establishing an industrial plant for manufacturing newsprint and writing and printing paper. The respondent registered a contract as per Heading No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 with the Custom House, Madras, for clearance of the good imported for initial setting up of a paper mill of 90000 tones capacity. As and when Bills of Entry were filed by the clearing agents of the respondent, the goods imported were asses...
Tag this Judgment!The Appraiser, Appraising Department (Group Ii), Madras Customs, Custo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC119
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question involved in these appeals is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the notification No. 62/83. Cus., dated 1-3-1983 granting exemption from the whole of the auxiliary duty of customs leviable under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 45 of the Finance Bill, 1983, with respect to paper making machinery and component parts thereof imported by the respondent.2. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act with the main object of establishing an industrial plant for manufacturing newsprint and writing and printing paper. The respondent registered a contract as per heading No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Project Imports (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965 with the Custom House, Madras, for clearance of the goods imported for initial setting up of a paper mill of 90,000 tonnes capacity. As and when bills of entry were filed by the clearing agents of the respondent, the goods imported were asses...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Leathers (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Mg. Director, A.A. Rashid Vs. Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ232
Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a petition for winding up filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 116 of 1987 was the respondent in Company Petition No. 87 of 1985 and the appellant in O.S.A. No. 174 of 1987 was the petitioner in the company petition. The parties will be referred to hereinafter by their rank in the company petition.2. It is not a matter in dispute that the petitioner supplied skins of sheep and goats to the respondent from January, 1981 to July, 1982, under 17 bills marked as Exs. P 2 to P 18. There was no time limit for payment of the price of the goods nor was there any agreement to pay interest on delayed payments. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,24,752-88 was due to the petitioner and it was making demands on the respondents to pay the same. It issued a notice through a lawyer on 8.12.1982 and the notice is marked as Ex. P45. In that notice, it had not only demanded payment of the principal but also the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!D. Gopalan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Chief Secy. and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ308
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The petitioner claims that he has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to advance the cause of general public and by way of public interest litigation by filing this writ petition. Though in form the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, in substance the relief prayed for is to quash the order of appointment appointing the third respondent as Public Prosecutor.2. Even at the outset, it may be made clear that the petitioner has in unequivocal terms stated in para 2 of the affidavit as follows:I humbly submit the third respondent is an advocate, it appears nearly 25 years standing in the Bar and no doubt command more respect, reputation for his professional integrity among the Members of the Bar and the general public.Notwithstanding the above encomium paid, to the third respondent, the petitioner challenges the appointment of the third respondent as Public Prosecutor on the ground that he being a Senior Advocate, has to submit ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Flour Mills Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC378(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In all these three writ petitions, Mr. D. Trilokchand Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the procedure followed so far as the assessment years 1987-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 are concerned should be in accordance with the various Government orders, policy abstracts, such as G.O. No. 973, Revenue Department, dated 27th May, 1967, which have not been followed by the authorities concerned, and what is more, during the relevant period 10th April, 1970 and 19th January, 1976 which is the time between the decisions pronounced in Pyarelal Malhotra v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer at [1970] 26 STC 416 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) proper approach has not been made by the authorities concerned, and there is an element of discrimination so far as the writ petitioners herein are concerned. While arguing the instant writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court, item 4-A ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mohan Lal Sowcar Vs. Hameedia Hardware Store Represented by Its Par ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ270
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The questions which arise for consideration are whether the petition for eviction is maintainable as such and whether the claim of the petitioner is bona fide. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of house and premises No. 157, Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Madras-4. He entered into an 'Agreement of Rental' on 9-6-1982 with the respondent leasing out the 'Downstair portion' of the said house and premises on a monthly rent of Rs. one thousand for a period of eleven months i.e., from 10-6-1982 to 9-5-1983. After the expiry of the lease, the petitioner filed the petition out of which this revision arises Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act, for a direction to the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the ground floor of the aforesaid premises before the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The said petition was taken on file as R.C.O.P. 2962 of 1983 on the file of the XII...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shanmugam Vs. Kuppammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ335
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant in R.C A.No. 3 of 1984 on the file of the appellate authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem is the petitioner in this revision petition and the landlady is the respondent.2. The respondent/landlady filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 109 of 1980 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsir), Salem for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition premises on the ground that he is occupying a portion of the petition premises bearing Door No. 6-A, that the portion in the possession of the respondent is Door Nos.6-B, that the said portion is required by her as an additional accommodation and that the portion which is already in her possession is not sufficient for accommodating her members of the family.3. The tenant resisted the application contending that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide that the buildings in Door Nos.6-A and 6-B are separate buildings divided by a wall and that Door No. 6-B is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »