Chennai Court December 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.
Govindamma and ors. Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC27
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The widow, the minor children and the mother of the deceased Govindaraj, in whose favour the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an Award for a sum of Rs. 31,000/- have fifed the present appeal for enhancement of the above amount.2. The deceased, Govindaraj aged 37 years. at the time of his death on 2-5-1981, was the husband of the first appellant, the father of appellants 2 to 6 and the son of the seventh appellant. He was employed as a Mazdoor in the Port Trust at Madras, drawing a salary of Rs. 711-50. He was knocked down by the PTC bus M.S.W. 197 belonging to the respondent, being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.O.P. No. 349 of 1981 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 75,000/-.3. The respondent contested the claim alleging that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving...
Sagayam Engineering Works Vs. Srivatsa Tube Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad237
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against order passed by the court below refusing to condone the delay of 730 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner.2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this revision can be stated as follows : The respondent herein filed a suitfor recovery of money in respect of goods sold and delivered and the suit was decreed ex parte on 3-12-1984. Neither the revision petitioner nor his counsel appeared nor filed a written statement. According to the revision petitioner he had engaged one Kannathasan, Advocate and also signed the written statement and gave it to him and he was expecting communication from the advocate but no communication was received and he was under the impression that the suit was pending. But he came to know of the ex parte decree only on 21-11-1986 when he received the notice in the execution petition filed on the basis of the ex parte decree. According to him, i...
Charles Hereward Simpson and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ511
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two appeals out of the common judgment and separate decrees of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in O.S. Nos. 66 and 67 of 1986. The plaintiffs in the suits are the appellants. The defendants are the respondents. The plaintiffs are the children of one Charles Harold Simpson, who is no more. The two plaintiffs in O.S. No. 66 of 1986 are the sons and the three plaintiffs in O.S. No. 67 of 1986 are the daughters of Charles Harold Simpson. The pleadings of the parties in both the suits are based on common allegations. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 66 of 1986 seek a declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the following properties.(i) Old Survey No. 2917/1(part) -- acres 15527(ii) Old Survey Nos. 2898/1(part)and 2917/1(part) -- acres 36.73Total -- acres 192.According to the plaintiffs, the extent of acres 155.27 in item (i) was comprised in title deed No. 3 and the extent of acres 36.73 in item (ii) was...
Lalitha Parameswari Alias Madhupriya Vs. R. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ438
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlady is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the orders of the authorities below dismissing her application filed under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973), (hereinafter referred to as the Act') praying for an order of eviction against the respondent herein.2. The premises bearing Door Nos. 30 and 31, Arabiculam Lane, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruchy Town, now belongs to the petitioner herein. Previously, one C.T. Senthilnathan Chettiar was the owner of the property in questions and he had let it out to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 140 payable on or before the 5th of the succeeding English calendar month. According to the case of the petitioner, the respondent had not paid the rent between June, 1976 to October, 1976 amounting to Rs. 700 and such non-payment was willful. In addition, the petitioner a...
A. Krishnaraj Vs. T. Vasantha Gopal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad83
ORDER1. 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 constructions on the walls CD and CH, An application in I.A. No. 1433 of 1978 was filed under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P.C., 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 praying for stay of execut...
Kanaka Films Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)209; [1989]177ITR88(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. These two writ petitions were filed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order in the nature of a direction directing the respondent to carry forward the unabsorbed business loss and set it off against the business income of the petitioner of the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. 2. The petitioner is an assessee. He filed returns of income declaring an adjusted carried forward loss of Rs. 16,441 and an income of Rs. 4,385 after adjusting the balance loss of earlier years. The Income-tax Officer, in his orders dated November 30, 1970, and December 29, 1971, computed the income at Rs. 2,950 and Rs. 24,786 respectively. 3. For the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67 assessments were completed on August 14, 1968, February 20, 1968, February 22, 1969, January 27, 1979 and January 27, 1979 respectively. For the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,10,921 being hundi loans and interest paid and for the assessment y...
Arulmigu Karkoti Amman Temple, Represented by Its Executive Officer Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ271
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 5403 of 1982 against the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit property and for a sum of Rs. 1,037 by way of arrears of rent besides mesne profits, for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from the date of plaint.2. Before filing the suit the petitioner issued a notice on 4-2-1982 terminating the tenancy of the respondent by the end of March, 1982. Two reasons were given in the notice; one was that the respondent was very irregular in payment of rent and as on 28-2-1982, there were arrears in a sum of Rs. 948. The other reason was that the respondent had sublet the premises and was collecting huge rents from the tenant. There was no reference whatever to any forfeiture of the lease. There was no reply to the said notice by the respondent. The suit was filed on 9-4-1982. The respondent filed a written statement on 7-4-1983. In the written statement it was stated that the original tenancy was in favour ...
Union of India (Uoi), Owning Southern Railway Represented by General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ519
Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 407 of 1982, Sub-Court, Tiruchi, are the appellants in this Second appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,941-34, together with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum from 11-9-1980 to 11-9-1981, amounting to Rs. 1,969-38 totalling to Rs. 12,910-72 from the appellants for damage caused to the goods consigned to the appellants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The respondent is a firm carrying on business in aluminium utensils and for the purpose of carrying on their business, it used to place orders for the supply of raw materials, viz., aluminium coils and circles with the Indian Aluminium Company' Limited, Calcutta. The respondent placed orders with the said company for the supply of raw materials and the Company at Calcutta despatched the goods under three despatch notes dated 25-7-1980. The goods were properly packed and accepted for consignment by the appellants at Shalimar G...
Union of India (Uoi) Southern Railway Vs. Tiruchi Metal Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC288
Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 407 of 1982, Sub-Court, Tiruchi, are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,941-34, together with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum from 11.9.1980 to 11.9.1981, amounting to Rs. 1,969-38 totalling to Rs. 12,910-72 from the appellants for damage caused to the goods consigned to the appellants.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : The respondent is a firm carrying on business in aluminium utensils and for the purpose of carrying on their business, it used to place orders for the supply of raw materials, viz., aluminium coils and circles with the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Calcutta. The respondent placed orders with the said company for the supply of raw materials and the company at Calcutta despatched the goods under three despatch notes dated 25.7.1980. The goods were properly packed and accepted for consignment by the appellants at Shalimar Goods statio...
C. Kadarkarai Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Mad)137; [1989]176ITR121(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. These two writ petitions relate to the assessments under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee, viz, the petitioner herein, claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). That exemption was denied both by the Assessing Officer and by the first appellate authority and was ultimately confirmed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the orders of the authorities below, these writ petitions are filed. 2. Brief facts are the following : The petitioner is carrying on business in printing. He undertakes job works such as printing of inland letters,labels, note-books, fancy wrappers, wedding cards, etc., with his offset printing machine. In addition to that, he also purchases raw materials like paper and card-board and converts them into inland letters, note-books, labels, etc., and sells the same. The only ground on which the exemption as claimed by the petitioner was denied by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »