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.
T. Ravi Kumar Vs. the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC388
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a petition by the detenu's brother under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against the detenu T.Rajee and setting him at liberty. The order of detention was passed on 25.3.1987 by the respondent, viz.,the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling gold.2. On the night of 30/31.8.1986 at 2.30 a.m., the detenu T.Rajee arrived as a passenger from Singapore at Madras International Airport and produced his baggage consisting of one Unilite Brown Zip suitcase and one black colour Happy Fly Japan hand Zip bag for customs examination. He declared that the baggage contained one Akai Video Cassette Recorder Vs-3. He was cleared af...
A.T. Mathavan Vs. S. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ377
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Considering the limited scope of a controversy in this revision, and as well as the fact that the revision arises out of a suit of the year 1979, the revision itself has been taken up for final disposal today.2. The defendant in O.S. 286 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Mannargudi, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff initially laid the suit for injunction in respect of a lorry. The title to and possession of the suit lorry claimed by the plaintiff was denied by defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff would complain that the defendant took possession of the suit lorry in spite of an order of temporary injunction, which was subsisting then, and he wanted amendment of the plaint seeking the reliefs of declaration of title to the suit lorry and recovery of possession in case the Court should find possession with the defendant. The plaintiff also wanted amendment of the value of the suit...
M.C.R. Rajagopala Chettiar Memorial School Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ504
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, 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 trust.2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit 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, property was purchased under two sale deeds, one on 30-8-1972...
B.K. Madhavan, Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. Vs. State Rep. by the Labour Enf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ149Mad
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitions and the orders of this court dated 9th April 1985 and made in Crl. M.P. No. 2465/85 and 2468/85 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Sundar for M/s. Aiyer and Dolia, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. A. R. Nagarajan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following Order : The petitioner, against whom the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an offence under Section 19(b) of the Act pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur in S.T.C. No. 80 of 1985, invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 422 Cr.P.C. to quash the above proceedings. 2. The complaint has been filed on the allegation, that the Bank of Thanjavur of which the petitioner is the Chairman and Chief Executive Of...
R. Pandian Vs. Nagammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ241
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 68 of 1978. First Additional District Munsifs Court, Tiruchy. is the appellant in this second appeal. The appel lant is the absolute owner of door No. 65, Bishop Road, Puthur, Tiruchy. The respondents, related as mother and son, are the owners of door No. 64, Bishop Road, Puthur, Tiruchy, situate immediately to the east of the house belonging to the appellant. The appellant claimed that the eastern wall of his house belonged absolutely to him as exclusive owner thereof and also by continuous possession and enjoyment and acquisition of prescriptive title thereto. According to the appellant, an ancient window existed in his eastern wall at a height of 12' and through that window, his predecessors - in- title and himself have been getting free air and light without any obstruction whatsoever for over the statutory period, that the respondents attempted to construct a building in their site and in that process, a wall close to the eastern wall of ...
Begum Janammal Vs. Selva Arasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Mad174; (1988)IMLJ387
ORDER1. This revision is by the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 696 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif of Thanjavur. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff was for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. That suit was decreed by the first Court as prayed for. On appeal by the defendants A.S. 42 -of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, the title of the plaintiff in respect of a portion alone was upheld and injunction thereof granted; and the suit in respect of the remaining portion was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred S.A. 2028 of 1978 to this Court, and there was a cross-objection by the defendants. The second appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed by this Court, and the cross objection by the defendants was, allowed, dismissing the suit as a whole. Defendents 5 and 6 with the consent of the other defendants took out E.P. 195 of 1985 for delivery of possession, demolishing the construction made thereon by the...
Sharma Vs. Fenivard Represented by Power Agent R. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ428
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. unsuccessful tenant in the appeal in M.A.No. 19 of 1986 on the file of the Appellate Authority. Pondicherry is the petitioner in this revision petition and the respondent is the landlady.2. The respondent/landlady represented by her Power-of-Attorney Agent R. Ramadoss filed the petition in H.R.C.O.P.No. 124 of 1985 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Pondicherry for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act on the ground of demolition and reconstruction on the following averments: According to her, the revision petitioner became a tenant in the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 and that the petition building is more than 50 years old. The tenant had unauthorisedly installed shuttles and has been dumping raw materials thus weakening the floor and other parts of the old building. Further, he had unaut...
T. Himmatlal and ors. Vs. S. Balakrishna Joshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ435
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant who failed before both the authorities below has filed this revision petition challenging the order for eviction passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. It is urged on behalf of the tenants that the building in question is a new building having been constructed in 1978. Reliance is placed upon the deposition of P.W.1 to the effect that he constructed the first floor in 1978. It is argued that if the building had been in a dilapidated condition as alleged in the petition for eviction, the landlord would not have constructed the first floor. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that he had construction with asbestos sheets. It is seen from the report of the advocate commissioner, the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and also the evidence of R.W.3, an engineer examined by the tenants that the putting of two rooms in the first floor is asbestos sheet and one room is of tiles. It cannot fee inferred from the fact...
M.V. Valliappan and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Mad)289; [1988]170ITR238(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions which involve questions relating to the validity, scope and interpretation of the provisions of section 171(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, are disposed of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the several counsel appearing in these petitions, it would be enough to refer to the admitted facts in W.Ps. Nos. 994 and 995 of 1984. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 994 of 1984 was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, his minor son and his minor daughter, and has filed the petition on behalf of the Hindu undivided family which was assessed as such. The Hindu undivided family was a partner in some partnership firms in which the funds of the Hindu undivided family were invested. On April 13, 1979, a partial partition of certain assets belonging to the Hindu undivided family w...
Pullicar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1988]70STC194(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the third respondent in his B.P.Rt. No. 4145 of 1980, and to quash the order of the third respondent therein dated 20th November, 1980 and to direct the third respondent to dispose of the revision petition according to law. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it is stated by one Thiru. Krishnaraj, one of the directors of the petitioner-mill, that the petitioner was assessed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode. The method adopted for the assessment was as contemplated by sub-rules (2) to (7) of rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner was enjoying the facility of filing A-2 returns and paying tax on monthly turnover basis as per the said rules. The petitioner was complying with the conditions stipulated by the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »