Chennai Court August 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.
Kanniammal and ors. Vs. P. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ382
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition to transfer M.O.P.No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Vellore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its registered office at Madras. It is further stated that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence are at Madras, and therefore, the convenience of parties require the proceedings to be transferred to Madras.3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the application under Section 24, C.P.C. According to him the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to this Court, within the meaning of Section 24, C.P.C., and that a petition for transfer of the proceeding cannot be sustained. He relies upon two decisions of this Court viz., V...
Kanniammal and ors. Vs. P. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC65
Srinivasan, J.1. This is a petition to transfer M.O.P. No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Vellore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its registered office at Madras. It is further stated that the eye witnesses to the occurrence are at Madras, and therefore, the convenience of parties require the proceedings to be transferred to Madras.3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the application Under Section 24 C.P.C. According to him, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to this Court, within the meaning of Section 24 C.P.C, and that a petition for transfer of the proceeding cannot be sustained. He relies upon two decisions of this Court viz., Varala...
R. Padma and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Mad)179; [1990]185ITR269(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in Writ Petition No. 4536 of 1988 are the appellants herein. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 therein are respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein, and the writ petitioner is impleaded as the fourth respondent. 2. In the writ petition, the fourth respondent had claimed that along with his father, he entered into an agreement of sale dated January 28, 1988, with the appellants herein and another, for purchase of a house property bearing door No. 6/104, 10th Main Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, for Rs. 20,00,000. In terms of section 269UC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the prescribed statement was filed, and on April 5, 1988, an order dated March 28, 1988, under section 269UD(1) was served intimating that the Central Government would purchase the property from the vendors for the consideration shown in the agreement. Hence, challenging the validity of section 269UD, he has filed the writ petition. Reference is also made to other ...
R. Padma and ors. Vs. the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ63
Sathiadev, J.1. Respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.No.4536 of 1988 are the appellants herein. Respondents 1 to 3 therein are respondents 1 to 3 herein, and the writ petitioner is impleaded as fourth respondent.2. In the Writ petition, fourth petition, fourth respondent had claimed that along with his fat her, he entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.1.1988 with appellants herein and another, for purcha.se of a house property bearing Door No. 6/104, 10th Main Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore for Rs. 20,00,000. In terms of Section 269-UC(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the prescribed statement was filed, and that on 5.4.1988, an order dated 28.3.1988 under Section 269UD(1) was served intimating that the Central Government would purchase the property from the vendors for the consideration shown in the agreement. Hence, challenging the validity of Section 269-UD, he has filed the writ petition. Reference is also made to other similar writ petitions filed in this Co...
P. Chockalingam Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC308(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J.1. The petition is for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural), Proceedings No. Nil dated 20th November, 1982 and to quash the same. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner that Dharma Oil Mills Private Limited had their business at No. 11/1, Venkatadri Naicken Street, Madras-12, and it was an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II, C.S.T. Zone IV, Madras-10. The petitioner was ex-director of the said company along with three other directors by name A. Amirthalingam, Sankaran and Dharmar. One of the directors, Sankaran, sponsored the said company. The company was also registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, as a private limited company. The company was carrying on business in oil and oil cakes within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, C.S.T. Zone IV, Madras-10. The company ...
The Registrar, High Court Vs. C.B.S. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ66
Mohan, J.1. The Writ Appeal arises under the following circumstances: The respondent herein was enrolled as an Advocate on 6.10.1960. He practised in this Court for about 13 years. He was appointed as Assistant State Prosecutor on 15.6.1974. Thereafter, he was selected as District Munsif and joined the Judicial service on 16.5.1976. He was posted to Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.2. During his term of office, misunderstandings arose between him and some of the advocates of Thuraiyur Bar, as a result of which the respondent (writ petitioner) was placed under suspension on 3.3.1988 by the following order:Order ROC.27/82 Con B.2, dt. 3.3.1988:Whereas an enquiry into grave charges against Thiru G.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, in respect of his misconduct is contemplated;And whereas in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in public interest to place the said Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, under suspension from service: (1) Now therefore, under Sub-r...
K. Kandaswamy and anr. Vs. K.C. Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ197
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. On the trial Court passing an arbitrary order without looking into Order 26, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code., this revision petition is preferred.2. On 15.4.1988 at the instance of the plaintiffs, Court appointed one Mr. K. Kandaswami as Commissioner to inspect the suit properties. He submitted his report on 2.5.1988. On that day itself, the Court had appointed another advocate by name Mr. Sankaranarayanan as Commissioner to inspect the properties.3. It is not spelt out in the order as to where and how exactly the Courts get such a power to straightaway appoint another Commissioner without any of the parties asking for it, by filing an application. When the procedure to be followed by the Court is found in the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever it chooses to pass an order it has to acquaint itself with the prescribed procedure. It fails to adhere to the procedure, it would be acting without jurisdiction. The persons who suffer by such illegalities would be the litigan...
Mariyayee Ammal Vs. Janab Mohammed Sheriff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ196
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two revision petitions are at the instance of a cultivating tenant who is in enjoyment of two different portions of the same survey number under the same landlord.2. The petition was filed for eviction under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act for non-payment of rent for the year 1980-81. The petitioner herein had filed a counter in the petition for eviction on 12.11.1981 contesting the application. The petition was not taken up for hearing as the Revenue Court had been abolished. The Revenue Court was re-constituted some time in December, 1985. Notices were issued to counsel on record. The matter was posted to 14.10.1986 and the advocate for the petitioner had received notice on 18.9.1986. As she was not present on 14.10.1986, the matter was adjourned to 28.10.1986, 18.11.1986, 21.11.1986, 9.12.1986, 19.12.1986, 13.1, 1987 and finally to 20.1.1987. On all these dates neither the petitioner nor her counsel was present in Cou...
Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC182(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings No. L. 750/80 (B3)/FN 43004/74-75, and for quashing the order therein dated 22nd March, 1982 and for directing him to dispose of the petition for rectification of an error apparent on the face of the order of assessment dated 28th February, 1977 made in TNGST. 43004/74-75. 2. The following are the averments in the accompanying affidavit sworn to by the Secretary and Financial Controller of the petitioner-firm. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and is an assessee on the file of the second respondent. The petitioner among other things manufactures and market Standard-20 automobile vehicles run by diesel. The petitioner sold to the Agarwal Relief Trust, Madras, for use in the Agarwal Hospital, a Standard-20 ambulance van. The ambulance van in ques...
Jacob A. Chakramakal Vs. the Urban Land Tax Tribunal (ii Asst. Judge), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ235
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ and in particular for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of respondents 1 and 2 regarding the petitioner's disputed land bearing Town Survey No. 69 in Block No. 36, bearing Old Door No. 18, New Door No. 31, First Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adayar, Madras and for quashing the order of the 1st respondent, the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 25.9.1981 in U.L.T.A.No. 738 of 1876.2. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the absence of any document to prove sale of land in the relevant locality i.e., First Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adayar, the finding in the impugned judgment based on no concrete instant of sale of land in the said area and doubling the value fixed by the same 1st respondent on 16.8.1973 in U.L.T.A.No. 265 of 1981, is highly unjustified, arbitrary,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »