Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad119; (1988)IMLJ297
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 of Tirunelveli. The 6th 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 here under: -- Palanikumar Pillai (died)..1925 | ________________________________________________________ | | = Thayammal' (died) =Ponnammal (died in 1966) 1st wife second wife ____________________________________ | | | | Buria Chocka Chinna Chockalingam | lingam Pillai Pallai (died without | (died) children) | | | | _____________________ | | | | Sankaralingam V.C. Palani =Chockammal (died) | Pillai (died) Kumar Pillai (3rd deft) | = Malayammai (Bachelor) | (died) 4th 1st plff. | | ______________________________________|______________ | | | | | Subbiah Ramalin- Soma- Nataraj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad149
Sathiadev, J. 1. These two writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan dt. 15-2-1988 rendered in W.P. Not 1166, 1181 and 1229 of 1988. W.A. No. 469 of 1988 is filed against W.P. No. 1166 of 1988, while W.A. No. 488 of 1988 is filed against W.P. No. 1181 of 1988.2. W.P.No. 1166 of 1988 was filed by Mr. P. Jagajeevanram, a journalist, who publishes an English Fortnightly 'why not' and Tamil fortnightly 'Sathiyavetkai', and another called 'Cinema Studio'. He is an Industrialist manufacturing T. V. sets with brand name 'Jeevan'. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He has preferred the Writ Petition as a public interest litigation for issue of a Writ of Prohibition directing the respondents 1 to 4 to prohibit the fifth respondent from exhibiting, the Tamil film 'Ore Oru Gramathilae' throughout this country for its public exhibition, and to pass such further or other orders or directions in the nature of any writ as may be deemed fit and prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1988Mad340
ORDER1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the insolvent against the order of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, challenges the correctness of the dismissal of an application filed by the insolvent under S. 38 of the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner filed-an application in I.P. No. 7 of 1982 Sub-Court Karur praying that he may be adjudged paninsolyent, and by an order dt. 14-10-1985, the petitioner was ,adjudged as insolventa rid his properties vested with the Official Receiver for being administered in accordance. with the provisions of Act. In the course of such administration, ihe Official Receiver brought to sale some immovable properties belonging to the insolvent and they were also sold. The sales were awaiting confirmation. There are about 13 creditors of the insolvent, who are respondents' I to 13 herein. The 14th respondent is the Official Receiver, Tiruchirapalli. Claiming that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ349
Srinivasan, J.1. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent order of eviction made by the authorities below on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own occupation for he purpose of business by the landlady.2. As regards the wilful default, the averment of the landlady is that, the tenant is in arrears for a period of 17 months from 1.6.1979 to the end of October, 1980. The petition was filed in November, 1980. As regards the requirement for own business, the averment of the landlady is that a Syrup business is carried on in a rented shop in Madurai by her sons and that she required the petition building for the purpose of that business.3. While admitting that the rent was in arrears for a period of 17 months, the case put forward by the tenant in the counter-statement is as follows: 'The petitioner used to collect the rent once in twp or three to four months as and when it suits her convenience. Prior to the issue of registered lawyer notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1988]71STC133(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of assessment in Reference No. 44653/78-79 for the assessment year 1978-79 and to quash the order of the respondent passed therein on 30th January, 1982. 2. The petitioner's case, as borne out from the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is : The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in textiles, handicrafts, silver jewellery, readymade garments, etc., is a regular assessee on the file of the respondent and is regularly assessed to sales tax in respect of the many years past. The assessment is being made on the basis of the annual turnover shown by the petitioner in form A-1. Provisional assessment is made for the current year on the basis of the turnover determined in the previous year. The petitioner effects sales locally as well as in the course of export. The items dealt with by the petitioner being handicrafts, have export potential and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ436
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. On September 28, 1972, the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram passed a decree in O.S. No. 85 of 1971 on his file in favour of the father of the respondents herein against the petitioner herein for certain sum of money. The decree was amended by order dated 8.10.1974 made in I.A. No. 331 of 1974 and after amendment, the decree directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 3,200 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decre till date of realisation along with proportionate cost of Rs. 652-25 and the petitioner was granted six months time to pay the amount. The petitioner not having complied with the decree, the decree-holder set the execution proceedings in motion in E.P. No. 28 of 1979. The petitioner herein claimed to be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 on the footing that he is a 'small farmer' as defined by the Act. The executing Court, viz., the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, negatived his claim and ordered execution by o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1988]70STC291(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the first respondent herein dated 23rd July, 1981 and made in proceedings No. P.F.6/74-75, ordering adjustment of a sum of Rs. 4,820 from the security deposit of Rs. 9,000 deposited by the petitioner by way of term deposit into the State Bank of India, Ponneri. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is, inter alia, stated by the petitioner that he is the proprietor of the permanent cinema theatre, viz., 'Vetrivel Murugan Theatre' in Ponneri Town and that the said theatre was commissioned in the year 1974. He has been permitted to pay a weekly tax of Rs. 2,410 in respect of the theatre under section 5-B(1) of the Tamil nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. A permit in form IV-B has also been issued to him under rule 32-J of the Rules framed under the said Act, and he has been paying the tax for every week of the running of the theatre. The weekly returns g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1988(17)ECC290; 1991LC297(Madras); 1989(20)LC124(Madras); 1988(37)ELT189(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egmore, Madras in Crt. M.P. No. 407/87 in C.C. No. 248 of 1987 dated - and quash the same.Order:- This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and of Mr. C.M. Syed Fasiuddin, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following order :-The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who had filed a complaint against the respondent and another for an offence under Section 135(1)(b)(I) of the Customs Act, now pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-l) Egmore, Madras, as C.C. No. 248 of 1987, has filed this petition, to set aside the notice issued by the above Court under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(39)ELT25(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 21.1.81 and made herein, and the counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in No. 1153/1980 dt. 31.10.80 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent made in App. 183/78 dt. 25.1.78 and confirming the order of the 1st respondent made in C. No. V/32/301/73 dt. 4.9.76 comprised in the return of the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Ramalingam, Advocate for the petitioner, and or Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Court made the following order :- The matter arises under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first respondent in respect of electric fluorescent lighting tubes manufactured by the petitioner and sold on wholesale basis to M/s. General Electric Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ437
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The order of the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, imposing a condition of a cash deposit, while granting leave to defend the suit, is challenged by the second defendant/petitioner in this revision petition.2. Facts briefly are: The respondent filed Suit No. 1633 of 1986 before the Court of Small Causes, Madras against the petitioner and another for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,360 and future interest, due on a promissory note, jointly executed by the petitioner and the co-defendant in favour of the respondent on 23.6.1983 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. On receipt of summons, the petitioner filed M.P. No. 747 of 1986 under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 seeking leave to defend the suit, on the ground that the promissory note had been discharged by him, by periodical payments to the respondent through cheques drawn on the State Bank of India, Madras-2 and als...
Tag this Judgment!