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.
Lalitha Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ243
Ratnavel Pandian, Officiating, C.J.1. An order was pronounced on 3-5-1988, directing the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to the respondents commanding them to produce Vadivelu, who has been admittedly taken into custody by respondents 3 to 6, before this Court on 11th July, 1988, and file return. At that stage, we observedIn view of this direction, we are not issuing any other direction with regard to the plea for costs and compensation at this stage.Thereafter, this matter was called on 29-7-1988, on which date respondents 3 to 6 appeared. The present Inspector of Police Kanchipuram Taluk circle, filed an affidavit stating-4. I respectfully submit that in pursuance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the police made serious efforts to apprehend Mr. Vadivelu and produce him before this Hon'ble Court, but he could not be traced.5. I respectfully submit that the Superintendent of Police, Chingleput District West directed me as well as the present Sub Inspector (Law and Order) Wa...
Lalitha Vs. Director-general of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC190
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C.J.1. An order was pronounced on 3.5.1988, directing the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to the respondents commanding them to produce Vadivelu, who had been admittedly taken into custody by respondent Nos. 3 to 6, before this Court on 11.7.1988, and file return. At that stage, we observed:In view of this direction, we are not issuing any other direction with regard to the plea for costs and compensation at this stage.2. Thereafter, this matter was called on 29.7.198a, on which date respondent Nos. 3 to 6 appeared. The present Inspector of Police, Kanchipuram Taluk circle, filed an affidavit stating:(4) I respectfully submit that in pursuance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the police made serious efforts to apprehend Mr. Vadivelu and produce him before this Hon'ble Court, but he could not be traced.(5) I respectfully submit that the Superintendent of Police, Chingleput District West, directed me as well as the present Sub-Inspector (Law and Ord...
Ambrose Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ344
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has preferred this revision petition. Though two grounds were urged for eviction before the Rent Controller, only on ground survives now and it is the ground of requirement for own occupation. The respondent stated in the petition for eviction that he is residing at No. 102, Mettu St., Varaganeri, Tiruchi, which is a rented house. According to him, a partition has taken place in the family of the owner of that house and the person to whom it has been allotted in the partition is demanding the respondent to vacate the property. He has stated that he is in dire need of the house. In the counter filed by the petitioner herein, besides the denial of the averments in the petition for eviction, it was stated that it would be inconvenient for the respondent to got to his office from the place where the petition premises are situate. The Rent Controller accepted the evidence of the respondent an...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kiran Bala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC222
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur has filed this appeal against the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bikaner dated 28-2-1984 passed in case No. 2 of 1981.2. Kumari Kiranbala has filed cross objections for increase of the amount of compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal.3. I have heard Mr. M.D. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.R'. Singhi, the learned Counsel for the respondents.4. From the record, it appears that due to rashness and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Driver, the accident was caused in which the minor girl received injuries on both of her legs.5. The girl Kumari Kiranbala was going on her cycle. The Bus of the Corporation collided with her. So far as the appeal filed by the Corporation is concerned, on a thoughtful consideration of the entire material. I am convinced that it has got no merit as the finding of rashness and negligent driving of the Bus has been given on a just and...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. Chinnaswamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ395
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the decree-holder against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Cuddalore.2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, can briefly be stated as follows:The appellant herein obtained a money decree against one Harribabu on the basis of a promissory note dated 9-2-1976 for Rs. 6,000. She filed the suit on 6-11-1978 and attached the properties, which are the subject matter of this appeal, by way of attachment before judgment on 12-9-1978. Thereafter, she got a decree on 19-11-1979 and proceeded against the properties for realising the decree amount by way of execution. At that stage, the respondent herein, who is the claimant, filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., to raise the attachment contending that he purchased the property from the judgment-debtor on 12-6-1978 for Rs. 10,000 long prior to the date of attachment and a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Mad)122; [1989]179ITR593(Mad)
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C.J. 1. The Revenue having failed to obtain a stated case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refereed to as the 'Act'), has filed these petitions under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, seeking a direction form this court for reference on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the second proviso to section 244(1A), the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer granting interest under section 18 of the Surtax Act read with section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act are not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and on that ground setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee (respondent) is assessed under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) surtax Act, 1964. For the assess...
Masilamani Vs. V. Baliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ449
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is by the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below.2. The respondent sought eviction on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation for residential purpose. The Rent Controller negatived the ground of wilful default and ordered eviction on the ground of requirement for own occupation. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. The tenant filed C. R. P. No. 1849 of 1984 in this Court. By that time, another tenant against whom a similar eviction petition was filed at the same time by the respondent had vacated and that portion was occupied by the respondent herein. It was argued in that Revision Petition that the portion occupied by the respondent was sufficient for his purposes and the bona fide of the requirement ceased to exist. Sathar Sayeed, J., accepted that contention and by his order on 3-1-1986 remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority with the following observation:I am of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›