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.
The Special Tahsildar No. Iii, Vs. V. Rangasamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Mad162; (1988)IMLJ317
Srinivasa, J.1. We passed an order in C.M.P. Nos. 2977 to 2979 of 1987 on 7th January 1988, making the interim stay absolute on certain conditions with regard to the deposit of the amount awarded as compensation. It was found by us that the order against which the appeals have been filed was an ad interim ex parte order made by a learned single Judge of this court, in which he directed the appellant to deposit one fourth of the compensation awarded within eight weeks from the date of the order.The learned Judge had also stayed further proceedings pending further orders on the petition. It is against the said ad interim order, these appeals have been filed.2. We are very much concerned to note a disturbing tendency that is fast developing now-a-days. In the recent past, we have come across several matters in which appeals are filed against ad interim ex parte orders without resorting to the normal course of approaching the court which passed such orders and seeking appropriate further o...
Pazhaniyandi Vs. Kalyanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ174
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The premises in question which is in the occupation of the present petitioner as a tenant originally belonged to one Sampoorna Gurukkal who created a Trust as far back as on 13.3.1917 by a Deed of Trust. The premises in question was indisputably included in the trust property. The relevant part of the Trust Deed as translated in English reads as follows:.The properties mentioned in the schedule hereunder are my absolute properties. I hereby endow those properties for the purpose of residence of persons doing Pooja to Sri Prathigridhaeswaraswami and Sri Vaidhyanathaswami at Tittakudi and also for performance of other charitable objects from and out of the income from these properties. You are hereby appointed as trustee to manage the property and maintain accounts therefor. I have delivered possession of the property to you....The respondent who is an Archaka of the temple filed a proceeding under Sections l0(2)(1), 10(2)(ii)(a) and 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu B...
S. Sarangapani Iyengar Vs. the Asst. Commr. Urban Land Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ311
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Chingleput (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') holding that the agricultural lands in S. Nos. 27/2, 27/4A and 125/4 are liable to be assessed to Urban Land Tax.2. The petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned lands in Sithalpakkam Village which have been assessed to Urban Land Tax under the Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax. This assessment has been upheld by the Tribunal holding that the lands have been kept vacant during the fasli years 1381 to 1385 and the lands cannot, therefore, be held to be agricultural lands.3. The contention which is raised in this revision petition on behalf of the petitioner is that being agricultural lands, they are not liable to assessment to Urban Land Tax. The learned Additional Government Pleader, however, contended that the only land which is exempted from bein...
The Special Tahsildar No. Iii, Land Acquisition, Lignite Project Vs. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ317
Srinivasan, J.1. We passed an order in C.M.P. Nos. 2977 to 2979 of 1987 on 7th January, 1988, making the interim stay absolute on certain conditions with regard to the deposit of the amount awarded as compensation. It was found by us that the order against which the appeals have been filed was an Ad Interm Ex Parte order made by a learned single Judge of this Court, in which he directed the appellant to deposit one-fourth of the compensation awared within eight weeks from the date of the order. The learned Judge had also stayed further proceedings pending further orders on the petition. It is against the said ad interim order, these appeals have been filed.2. We are very much concerned to note a disturbing tendency that is fast developing now-a-days. In the recent past, we have come across several matters in which appeals are filed against Ad Interim Ex Parte orders without resorting to the normal course of approaching the court which passed such orders and seeking appropriate further ...
R. Kalyana Sundaram Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirkali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC140(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. W.P. No. 2298 of 1981 is filed to issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order or orders and call for the records in TNGST No. 179994/80-81 dated 18th March, 1981 on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirkali and prohibit from proceeding further in pursuance of the said notice in TNGST No. 179994/80-81 on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirkali dated 18th March, 1981. 2. Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1981 is filed to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order or orders prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of his notice dated 3rd April, 1981 and pass such further or other order or orders. 3. Prohibition is a judicial writ, issuing out of a superior court, to an inferior court, preventing the inferior court from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested, or in other words, to compel courts with judicial duties to keep within the limits...
K.S. Subramania Pillai and ors. Vs. E.S.R. Packirisami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad69
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The decision in this appeal turns on the answer to the question as to whether Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, or Section 14(2) of the Act, should be applied to the facts of the case. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. 47 of 1977, on the file of the subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, preferred this appeal, against the judgment and decree in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. To arrive at the decision, necessary facts have got to be set out. The suit property takes in a site of an extent of 32-1/2 cents and the superstructures standing thereon. The suit property admittedly belonged to one Sundaram Pillai, who died on 18-7-1942. His wife was one Soundarathammal. The couple had no issue. The plaintiff was the son of the elder brother of Sundaram Pillai. The defendant is the son o...
K.S. Subramanya Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. E.S.R. Packirisamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ34
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The decision in this appeal turns on the answer to the question as to whether Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, or Section 14(2) of the Act should be applied to the facts of the case. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 47 of 1977, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, preferred this appeal, against the judgement and decree in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. To arrive at the decision, necessary facts have got to be set out. The suit property takes in a site of an extent of 32 1/2 cents and the superstructures standing thereon. The suit property admittedly belonged to one Sundaram Pillai who died on 18.7.1942. His wife was on Soundarathammal. The couple had no issue. The plaintiff was the son of the elder brother of Sundaram Pillai. The defendant is the son...
A. Rukmani Ammal and ors. Vs. R. Sankaran Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ348
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, reversing the order of the executing court and holding that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, as extended to Kanvakumari District.2. The present petitioners filed an execution petition for executing a decree for possession passed in their favour in O.S. No. 1 of 1967 in respect of certain agricultural lands. The decree for possession was subject to the provisions of Act 8 of 1950 (Travancore-Cochin). The plaintiffs had taken a release deed in respect of one-third of the suit property from some of the defendants and the judgement debtors were in possession of two third share under the pattam and Kuzhikanam dated 12-2-1077, M.E. According to the contesting judgment debtors, the arrears of pattam for the entire property till 1974 came to Rs. 69.90 and out of this amount, the present petitioners were entitled only to ...
A. Krishnaraj Vs. T. Vasantha Gopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ263
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 1247 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order of the executing Court overruling the objection raised by the petitioner that E.P.R. No. 265 of 1982 in O.S. No. 1247 of 1975 filed by the first respondent herein on 12.10.1981 was barred by time.2. On 7-7-1978, in O.S. No. 1247 of 1975, the first respondent herein obtained an ex parte decree against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for a mandatory injunction directing them to demolish the walls at CD and CH noted in the plaint plan and for a permanent injunction as well restraining them from putting up construction on the walls CD and CH. An application in I.A. No. 1433 of 1978 was filed under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the ex parte decree so obtained by the first respondent. Along with that, another application in I.A. No. 1434 of 1978 was also filed...
P.A. Jacob and Others Vs. Nanda Timber Trading Co. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad140
ORDERSwamikkannu, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by defendants 1 to 9 O. S. No. 133 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Tiruneveli, against the judgment and decree dated 2nd Aug. 1978, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 53,548-22 P. with proportionate costs, finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the said sum from the defendants towards damages. 2. The suit itself was one for damages, and the case of plaintiffs-respondents herein was shortly as follows: The plaintiffs are carrying on business in timber with their head office at Ollachi and branch office at Shencottai. The defendants are carrying on business in Shencoittai under the name and style of Poabson and Co. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the State Government of Kerala on 19-8-1972 and acquired the right of cutting and removing the entire tree-growth in Achankil forest in Kerala State, for which they had paid a sum of Rs. 7,400/-by way of security depo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »