Chennai Court January 1988 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.
V. Nagarajan Vs. Commr., Salem Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ247
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner is a Bill Collector of the respondent. He is being penalised and is being called upon to pay the profession taxes, on the ground, he allowed their collection and recovery from the tax payers to become time-barred. The view of this Court with regard to liability of the Bill Collector of a Municipality to recoup it on the allegation of his failure to collect the taxes and allowing them to become time barred, has been expressed by Mohan, J., in A. Selvaraj and Ors. v. The Commissioner, Tiruvarur Municipality W. Ps. 3364 to 3369 of 1976, order dt. 23.11.1976, saying:Having regard to these provisions, I find it rather impossible to appreciate the stand of the Municipality as to how a Bill Collector could cause pecuniary loss to the Municipality by his failure to collect the taxes. Firstly, it does not lie within his powers to allow the recovery of taxes to become time-barred. The very elaborate procedure relating to collection of taxes mentioned in ...
P. Poonammal and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kanakavalli Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ18
Srinivasan, J.1. The controversy in this second appeal relates to the allotment of a half share in premises No. 56, Cathedral Road, Madras comprising 3 grounds and 1538 sq.ft. of land and a building thereon with a plinth area of 3876 sq.ft.2. One Rajaram Pillai filed the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, for partition and separate possession of one half share and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 for his share of collections of rent and for an account of the income from the property against his son V. Ramamoorthy alias R.M. Kumar. A few months after the filing of the suit, the plaintiff sold his undivided half share in the property to one Puram Prakasa Rao under a registered sale deed dated 16.9.64 for a sum of Rs. 20,000. A preliminary decree was passed on 31.3.1966 granting one half share to the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 500 for his share in rental collections. The defendant filed an appeal A.S. No. 399 of 1966 in this Court and during the pendency of the appeal, the plaint...
Natesan and anr. Vs. Govindasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ492
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. By concent of parties, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This revision petition is directed against the order passed in IA. 840 of 1987 in O.S.No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ariyalur. The petitioners herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 2 of 1988 for declaration of their title and for consequential relief of injunction. The suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents contending that they are in possession of the property and they have prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession. It appears that after the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiffs came forward with the petition in I.A.No. 840 of 1987 under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint seeking the relief of possession in the place of the relief of injunction. It was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the application is belated and there is absolutely no bona fides in the application.3. Accepti...
P. Ponnammal and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kanakavalli Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ179
Srinivasan, J.1. The controversy in this second appeal relates to the allotment of half share in premises No. 56,Cathedral Road, Madras comprising 3 grounds and 1538 sq.ft., of land and a building thereon with a plinth area of 3876 sq.ft.2. One Rajaram Pillai filed the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, for partition and separate possession of one half share and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 for his share of collections of rent and for an account of the income from the property against his son V. Ramamoorthi alias R.M. Kumar. A few months after the filing of the suit, the plaintiff sold his undivided half share in the property to one Puram Prakasa Rao under a registered sale deed dated 16-9-1964 for a sum of Rs. 20,000. A preliminary decree was passed on 31.3.1966 granting one half share to the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 500 for his share in rental collections. The defendant filed an appeal A.S. No. 399 of 1966 in this Court and during the pendency of the appeal, the plaint...
Assam Bengal Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC391
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant, M/s. Assam Bengal Roadways (P) Ltd., against the judgment and decree dated 23 10-1981 in O.S. No. 234 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund in a suit for damages finding that the plaintiffs M/s. Hindustan Photo Films ., Ootacamund and M/s. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., are entitled to a decree directing the defendant/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34.904.82 to the second plaintiff-Insurance Company with costs and with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till date of realisation.2. Before the lower Court, the case of the respondents is as under: The first plaintiff is M/s. Hindustan Photo Films ., a Government of India Enterprise, having their registered office at Indu Nagar, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu and the second plaintiff is M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Coimbatore having their registered Office at Coimbatore. The defendant/appellant herein/is a public common...
British Physical Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT344(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J.1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that In the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records, of the 1st respondent relating to order No. 307-B/80, dated 11 -11 -1980 and quash the same in so far as it imposes the condition relating to interchangeability of components.2. Order:- This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 30-4-1981 and made herein, and the Counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in No. 307-B/80, dated 11 -11 -1980 on the file of 1st respondent comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Ganapathy for M/s. S. Venkataraman and Jyoti Balasundaram, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimh...
Gordon Woodroffe Employees Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ425
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent not to implement the notice dated 24.8.1987, issued under Section 9-A, of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), until the dispute is resolved by way of settlement or adjudication. The facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, Co the extent necessary, are as hereunder:The last settlement between the appellant union and the third respondent management dated 12.11.1982 expired on 31.12.1984. The union placed a charter of demands on 213.1985, after terminating the settlement under Section 19 of the Act. Conciliation efforts failed and the concerned Labour Officer sent his failure report dated 8.9.1987 to the Government, which sent a notice to the union on 19.10.1987 to the effect that the failure report was received by the Government on 6.10.1987. The Management had issued a notice unde...
Ghanshyam Chaturbhuj Vs. Industrial Ceramics P. Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas36(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioner whose complaint against the respondents for an offence under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACt'), for failure to issue to him share certificates had been dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras, under section 203,Criminal Procedure Code, has preferred this revision, challenging the above order of dismissal. 2. The facts briefly are : The petitioner filed a complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, before the above court against the respondents, for an offence under section 113(2) read with section 621 of the Act, on the allegation that he is the holder of 466 equity shares, 236 preference share and 2069 redeemable preference share that share certificates for the above shares have not been issued to him even though the ordinary and preference shares had been transferred to him even though the ordinary and preference shares had been transferred to him e...
Management of Tabesh Process, Sivakasi Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ143Mad
ORDER1. The main point that is urged by the Management in this writ petition is that no interest can be levied with respect to compensation that is awarded by a Labour Court because the Labour Court is not a Civil Court. This contention is made by Mr. K. T. Paul Pandian, learned counsel for the employees, referring to the decisions in Rangarathinam Pillai v. L. C., : (1969)IILLJ416Mad and Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass, : (1984)ILLJ233SC . The learned counsel contends that in the instant case before us, the award itself provides for interest, whereas the decision reported in Management of Nathan's Press. Madras v. K. Krishnan, (1988) LIC. 700 (Mad) has not provided 'interest', and as such the facts of the decision cited case viz, (1988) LIC. 700 (Mad) are distinguishable so far as the facts of the instant case before us are concerned. 2. In the instant case before us, the grievance of the Management is only with respect to the interest that had been awarded by the Tribunal and noth...
M.C.R. Rajagopala Chettiar Memorial School Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad104
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from applying the provisions of the Urban Land Tax Act to the land in S. No. 387/2 (T.S. No. 220/4) Sanganur Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioner trust2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavits accompanying the writ petition that with a view to perpetuate the memory of M. Chinna Rangaswamy Chettiar, M.C.R. Rajagopal Chettiar son of M. Chinna Rangaswami Chettiar created a trust on 2-12-1963 in and by which he directed the schools and hospitals should be run in the name of the trust. On 2-12-1963 itself M.C.R. Rajagopal Chettiar executed a will bequeathing shares in certain companies for the trust He also bequeathed in the will a house giving life interest to his wife. In furtherance of the object of the trust, for the purpose of constructing a school, properly was purchased under two sale deeds, one on 30-8-1972 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »