Chennai Court March 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. Subbarayalu Naidu and ors. Vs. the Revisional Authority and Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ424
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The petitioner herein has prayed for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Revisional Authority and the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur relating to Proceedings R.P. No. 64/78 J-2 dated 29.12.1980 and for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. It is Inter Alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by one of the petitioners herein with an extent of 36 acres 72 cents of wet lands among others, situate in the village of Kilaiyur, Nagapattinam taluk, Thanjavur District to 12 persons. The petitioners have been cultivating the said lands as cultivating tenants under the landlords from about the year 1962. Before that the lands were under pannai cultivation of the landlord. After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, the landlord leased the said lands to the petitioners and similar lands to other cultivating tenants. The petitioners had been cultivating...
Lily Ammal Alias Saraswathi Bai Vs. B.T. Vadivelu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ309
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The two defendants (respondents herein) are the plaintiffs younger brothers. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the suit house belonged to her mother, purchased by her on 21-12-1939 and she was in possession of the same till her death in 1948. After the death the property devolved on the plaintiff and she became the absolute owner thereof. The plaintiff and the defendants were living together in the suit house. After the defendants' marriage respectively in 1964 and 1965 the plaintiff permitted each of them in occupation of separate portions of the house, the plaintiff herself occupying the middle portion. While so in 1969 the second defendant fraudulently prepared a document and obtained the signature of the plaintiff with a view to show that all the three of them i.e., the sister and the two brothers were each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property and to make their possession permanent. This doc...
Madras Vanaspati Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Subramanian, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Mad)69; [1989]175ITR172(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioners, against whom and another the respondent has filed a comlplaint for offences under sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), now pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras-2, invoke the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 to quash the above proceedings, on the ground that since the original assessment of the Income-tax Officer has been set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and reassessment has been ordered, the very basis and substratum of the prosecution now no longer exists. 2. Facts briefly are : The first petitioner is an assessee under the respondent. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the director of the first petitioner ; while the fourth petitioner is the cashier and the fifth petitioner is a broker for petitioners Nos. 1 to 3. One Manoharan, who is the sixth accu...
Palanikumar Pillai Vs. Palanikumar Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ297
Srinivasan, J.1. A score and a year ago, the foundation for the present appeals was laid by the institution of a suit for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The sixth defendant in the suit is the appellant in both the appeals while the plaintiffs are the respondents.2. It is better to have the genealogy of the family to which the parties belong in order to appreciate the facts comfortably hereunder: Planikumar Pillai (died)--1925M. Thayammal (died) M. Ponnammal (died) in 19661st wife | 2nd wife _____________________________________ | | | |Peria Chockalingam Chinna Chockalingam |Pillai (died) Pillai (died without chiledren) | | | | | M. Chockammal (died) | _____________________ (3rd defendant) | | | |Sankaralingam V.C. Palanikumar |Pillai (died) Pillai |M. Malayammal (Bachelor |(died) 1st pltff. |(4th defendant) | | ___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Subbiah Pillai Ramalingam Somasundaram Nataraja Kanthi- (died on Pil...
P.K. Sadagopa Ranganathan Vs. Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ180
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner, who was a Divisional Engineer (Electrical) with the respondent has been, on disciplinary section, visited by the impugned order, with the punishment of compulsory retirement under Regulation 5 (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. There were two charge memorandums, one dated 9.6.1981 and the other dated 17.8.1981. The first memorandum of charge put forth against the petitioner three charges as follows:CHARGE 1: That he has encashed the cheque bearing No. 839169, dated 3.4.1970 for Rs. 878 issued in favour of the Assistant Engineer/ construction/Tiruttani towards the recoupment of interest on 6.4.1970, when he was not Assistant Engineer/Construction/Tiruttani. This is with a view to prevent detection of fictitious purchases of Blue Granite Jelly.CHARGE 2: He has brought into interest accounts of the Assistant Engineer/Construction/ Tiruttani on 3.4.1...
K.S. Anandan Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ponneri Assessment Cir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)IMLJ327; [1989]74STC21(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. The only point that arises for deep consideration in the instant case is, the interpretation of section 4 together with section 5-B(2) available in the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows : 'Tax on payment for admission to entertainments. - (1) On each payment for admission to any entertainment, there shall be levied and paid to the (State) Government (except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act), a tax (hereinafter referred to as the entertainments tax) calculated at the following rates, namely :- Rate of tax Where such payment (inclusive of the amount of the tax) - (i) is not more than (thirty paise)One-fourth of such payment. (ii) is more than (thirty paise) but isOne-third of such payment.not more than (one rupee and fiftypaise) (iii) is more than (one rupee and fiftyTwo-fifths of such payment.paise). Provided that in the case of cinematograph exhibitions, the tax sha...
G. Varadaraju Vs. the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad98
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent made in Roc. P. 5/38600/81 dt. 15-4-1981 and to direct the first respondent to forbear from issuing any permit under the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act 1958, to the respondents 3 and 4 for opening a rice mill at A. Vellodu village.2. It is stated in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, that the authorities have recommended that 16000 bags of paddy is produced from the Adianuthu village. This is factually incorrect and contrary to the Revenue Records. The authorities have not perused the crop register to ascertain the facts. If only the first respondent had perused the crop records for the fasli 1387, (388 and 1389 be could have come to a conclusion about the total quantum of paddy cultivated in the area. Moreover, the public from the Adianuthu village will use only the rice milts situated in Dindigul town and they will not come to the rice mill to be started in A. Vellodu villa...
The Dakshinamara Nadar Sangam, Through Its Commissioner Vs. K. Darmar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ37
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 225 of 1976, District Munsif's Court, Madurai Town is the appellant in this Second Appeal. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is as follows:- The suit property, which is a shop situate in door Nos. 9, 10 at North Veli Street, Madurai, belongs to the appellant. Under an unregistered lease dated 4.5.1949, deceased Kayambu Pandithan became a tenant of the suit property for a period of three years from 1.4.1949 to 31.3.1952 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. The shop was taken on lease by deceased Kayambu Pandithan for the purpose of running a barber shop and a refundable advance of Rs. 46 was also paid and he continued to be a tenant even after the expiry of that period, though the rent was increased to Rs. 23 per month from 1.7.1972. Though the shop was initially let out to Kayambu Pandithan for running a barber shop, the first respondent herein, who is the son of deceased Kayambu Pandithan, has been using that shop as a tea shop. From April, 19...
A. Malaichamy Vs. Director of Health Services and Family Planning, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ470Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the disciplinary proceedings in No. 90908/ESI/SC/72 dated 1st December 1975 and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, it is contended that he joined the Government Service as a Pharmacist in 1967 at the E.S.I, Dispensary, Tondiarpet. On 18th October 1972, the Senior Accounts Officer conducted a special audit and certain shortage of stock was found. He asked the petitioner to own responsibility for the shortage but the petitioner refused to give any confessional statement. Then he was transferred to Red Hills on 3rd November 1972. On 9th March 1974 a memo was issued to him regarding the shortage and the petitioner gave a reply denying the charges. He was later on transferred to Pallavaram and then to Egmore. On 26th December 1975 her received another memo and the petitioner replied denying the charges. On 18th May 1976 he was transferred to Perambur and when he went to join duty, he was tol...
Sri Balaji Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettur R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC417(Mad)
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. When these batch of writ petitions came up for admission, this Court held that the High Court should not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the appellate authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions took up the stand that the provisions contained under section 31(5) of the Act confer discretionary powers on the appellate authority and, therefore, it should be exercised judiciously and the authority must pass speaking orders. It is stated that in most of these cases, sufficient security was furnished. But in spite of that, the appellate authority refused to grant absolute stay without assigning any reasons, following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Assistant Collector, Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. : 1985ECR4(SC) . Learned counsel attempted to distinguish the said case on facts. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »