Chennai Court April 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.
Vasantha and ors. Vs. Rathinasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ192
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 455 of 1986, Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, against an order dismissing their application for injunction restraining defendants 2 to 6 from described in schedules 'A' to 'D' in the plaint.2. The appellants put forward the following case in the plaint: The suit properties described in schedules 'A' to 'E' of the plaint, excepting a few items, belonged ancestrally to one Sangalimuthu Kalathii Vendrar who died on 8-5-1986. He had two wives. The Junior wife died in 1964 and the senior died in 1984. The first plaintiff is the only daughter through the second wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of his predeceased daughter through the first wife. The 1st defendant is another daughter through the first wife. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are the only heirs of the deceased propositus. The plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share and the 1st defendant is entitled to the remaining l/3rd share. They ...
Malick Dinar Baithul Mal and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ50
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Malick Dinar Baithul Mal, Arippu Street, Kottar, Nager-coil and three others who are petitioners 2 to 4 in their personal capacity and as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the first petitioner for calling for the records of the proceedings resulting in the order dated 28.2.1981 and made in RC No. 15585/kk/c6/80, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the 1st respondent herein, and quash the same.2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by K.S. Ibrahim, accompanying this petition, thus:He was the duly elected President of Malick Dinar Baithul Mal Arippu Street, Kottar, Nagercoil, the first petitioner herein. He has filed this affidavit for himself individually and in his capacity as President of the 1st petitioner institution. He has also filed this affidavit on behalf of the other petitioners herein in such dual capacity.3. The petitioner institution is comprised of a mosque, a library and Madras a ...
Umayal Ramanathan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ349
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent herein relating to its letter in Ref: No. 21255/T-1/79-7, dt. 15.12.1979 and Letter No. 16267/T-1/80-1, dt. 7.6.1980 and quash the said two orders and consequently to direct the first respondent to consider and deal with the application of the petitioner for exemption afresh in accordance with law.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner would state that R.S. No. 1/12 in Block No. 1 in Puraswalkam village in Madras Urban agglomeration (Door No. 1076, Poonamallee High Road, Madras-84), belongs to her absolutely and the said property is located in a residential area, near the Junction of Poonamallee High Road and Ritherdon Road. She is the only daughter of her father. Dr. R.M. Algappa Chettiar, a well known Philanthropist, Educationalist and industrialist. She and her husband constituting the fa...
V.P. Nagarajan Vs. Prabhavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ475
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is against an order dismissing the application in I.A. No. 858 of 1986 which was one to restore I.A. No. 637 of 1985 which was dismissed for default on 26.2.1986. I.A. No. 637 of 1986 was in turn to restore I.A. No. 486 of 1985 which was dismissed for default on 29-4-1985. I.A. 486 of 1985 itself was one for setting aside the exparte decree Passed on 22-1-1985 in a suit for specific performance bearing O.S. No. 14 of 1984, Sub-Court, Poonamallee.2. In support of the application I.A. No. 858 of 1986, an affidavit was filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is very distressing to note that counsel not only filed the affidavit in support of the application but also signed the application as advocate for petitioners. In recent times, an unhealthy practice has grown up among the members of the Bar to come out with affidavits in support of their clients even without the clients themselves filing affidavits setting out the facts. Unfortunately th...
Agasthiyar Trust Reptd. by Its Trustee Sri K. Rajagopal Chettiar Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ336
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. Mr. Somayaji, learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the paragraph 7 of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.-2625, dated 27th December, 1976, which reads as follows:Clause VII(a): All Institutions recognised as charitable institutions under the Indian Income-tax Act will be dealt with as such for purposes of concessions under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this aspect had been overlooked by the authority concerned, namely the Commissioner and Secretary to Government when he had made an order on 28th January, 1982 (in letter No. 73624/U1/80-7, dated 28.1.1982) informing the trustee, Sri Agastiyar Trust, 234, Mint Street, Madras-3, that they see no grounds to comply with the request of the trustee, and accordingly rejected the prayer.2. In this regard Mr. Somayaji, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the following submissions were made before the Honourable Minister for Revenue, Fort St. Ge...
P.P. Subba Raja Vs. E.S. Gurusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad321
Ratnam, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 752 of 1973, District Munsifs Court, Koilpatty (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is the appellant in the second appeal as well as the appeal against order and the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are briefly as follows : --The respondent is the owner of the suit property a vacant site measuring 90 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 268/1-A and 268/ 2-A, out of a total extent of 2 acres and 20 cents, in Sankarankoil. That vacant site was leased out by the respondent herein in favour of one Vargese under a registered lease deed dated 1-5-1968 for a term of 10 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 67.50 ps. for the purpose of running a saw mill. The lessee Vargese was unable to carry on the saw mill business in the land leased out to him; but handed over the leased property to the tenant without the consent of the respondent Later, the tenant and the respondent agreed to allow the tenant to b...
The Proctor and Gamble Company Represented by Power of Attorney Holder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ36
Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order of Bhaskaran, J., sitting on the original side of this Court, dismissing the applications filed by the appellant for injunction and allowing the applications filed by the respondents for vacating the interim injunction granted. The relevant facts are shortly these: The appellant claiming to be a Corporation organised under the Laws of State of Ohio, United States of America has instituted the suit C.S. No. 425 of 1987 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the artistic design and literary work contained in its package filed along with plaint as documents C.1 and C.2by use of their package filed as documents G.I and G.2 along with the plaint or by any other package containing any artistic work or literary work deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their goods as and for those of the pla...
G. Mohan Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT245(Mad)
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused. The accused was found in possession of foreign T.V., foreign V.C.R. and video camera in his house. When called upon to explain as to how he came into possession of those articles, the accused produced the Customs Clearance Certificate in respect of the T.V. set given by his brother. But, in respect of the other two items (V.C.R. and video camera), his explanation was that they were left by one Karim in his house who was to sell those articles to him upon producing the Customs Clearance Certificate on the next day. Before Karim could come and produce the Customs Clearance Certificate, the articles were seized. The trial Court did not accept and explanation tendered by the accused and convicted him under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and fined him to the extent of Rs. 1000. On appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the amount of fine has been reduced to Rs. 100. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitione...
G. Mohan Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC85; (1990)ILLJ468Mad
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the accused. The accused was found in possession of foreign T.V., foreign V.C.R. and video camera in his house. When called upon to explain as to how he came into possession of those articles, the accused produced the Customs Clearance Certificate in respect of the T.V. set given by his brother. But, in respect of the other two items (V.C.R. and video camera), his explanation was that they were left by one Karim in his house who was to sell those articles to him upon producing the Customs Clearance Certificate on the next day. Before Karim could come and produce the Customs Clearance Certificate, the articles were seized. The trial Court did not accept the explanation tendered by the accused and convicted him under Section 135(1)(b)(i) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and fined him to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- On appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the amount of fine has been reduced to Rs. 100. 2. Learned counsel for the revision-pet...
R. Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad96
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, made in an appeal under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to Tamil Nadu. The main complaint of the petitioners is that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the Tahsildar, who submitted a report as to the valuation of the land, had followed the guidelines contained in the Rules framed by the Government which Rules are called Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968. The relevant rule is found in Rule 5. Rule 5, to the extent to which it is relevant, reads thus -'Principles for determination of market value : The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional market value : (a) In the case of lands - (i) classification of the land as dry, manawari, wet and the like; (ii) classification under various terms in the settlement register and accounts; (iii) the rate of r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »