Chennai Court September 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.
S. Gomathi Ammal Vs. S. Nallamuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ433
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 104 of 1978 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai in C.M.A. No. 198 of 1980 reversing the order passed by the District Munsif, Madurai.2.Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows:The plaintiff, the respondent herein, filed O.S.No.104 of 17.4.1978 against the defendant for recovery of money on the basis of an equitable mortgage executed by the defendant on 22.2.1975 after borrowing a sum of Rs. 2,000 for family expenses. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Ordinance 5 of 1978, which has been now replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 and contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to half of the principal and half of the interest and that the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree only for Rs. 1,000 and interest thereon at 6% p.a. from 14-7-1978, the date of publication of the A...
C. Marianandam Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ269Mad
ORDER1. The facts of the case which are not in dispute lie in a very short compass. The petitioner was serving as the Headmaster in Hajee Mansoorsha Oriental Arabic High School, the correspondent of which is the third respondent herein. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 1st January 1988 with effect from 4th January 1988. The order of dismissal set out the following six reasons therefor :- 1) Misbehaviour with a lady teacher by name Sumathi Elizabeth; 2) English coaching to X Std. students was insufficient; 3) Using bad words when speaking to students; 4) Insulting the organizer of Nutritious Meals Centre of Sulthan Ahamed Primary School; 5) Compelling the teachers improperly and getting their signatures : and 6) Non-co-operation with the management and misuse of power thereby causing confusion and disturbance to the proceedings in school and speaking in loud voice openly degrading the management. 2. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to exp...
Chinnammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Kannagi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad185
Srinivasan, J.1. One Chidambara Udayar of Pottireddipatti, Nainakkal Taluk, Salem District, had three sons Rangasamy Udayar, Ganesan and Devaraju. By a deed dated 11-3-1959, a partition was effected among the father and sons. While the father was allotted the properties described in Schedule 'A' to the document, the sons were together allotted the properties described in Schedule B' to the document. Chidambara Udayar executed a registered settlement deed on 27-7-1962 in favour of his daughter-in-law Kannaki, wife of Rangasamy Udayar giving substantial properties out of those allotted to him in the partition, to be enjoyed by him during his lifetime without any alienation and after his lifetime to be enjoyed by her absolutely. The three brothers viz., Rangasamy, Ganesan and Devaraju divided their properties by a registered deed dated 20-10-1964. The properties, described in Schedule A to that document were allotted to Rangasamy, It was provided an the document that in one of the sites a...
Chinnammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Kannaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ314
Srinivasan, J.1. One Chidambara Udayar of Pottireddipatti, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, had three sons Rangasamy Udayar, Ganesan and Devaraju. By a deed dated 11-3-1959, a partition was effected among the father and sons. While the father was allotted the properties described in Schedule A to the document, the sons were together allotted the properties described in Schedule B to the document. Chidambara Udayar executed a registered settlement deed on 27-7-1962 in favour of his daughter-in-law Kannaki, wife of Rangasamy Udayar giving substantial properties out of those allotted to him in the partition, to be enjoyed by him during his life time without any alienation and after his life time to be enjoyed by her absolutely. The three brothers viz., Rangasamy, Ganesan and Devaraju divided their properties by a registered deed dated 20-10-1964. The properties described in Schedule A to that document were allotted to Rangasamy. It was provided in the document that in one of the sites allo...
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ141
Sathiadev, J.1. Second respondent in W.P. No. 1192 of 1984 being the Government of Tamil Nadu is the appellant herein. Writ petitioner is the first respondent herein. Respondents 2 to 6 herein were respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition.2. The writ petition was filed by Arcot N. Veeraswami/first respondent herein to issue a Writ of declaration that Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 17 of 1983, dated 21.12.1983is null and void. This Ordinance was passed to amend Section 3 of Pachaiyappa's Trust (Takingover of Management) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1981)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) substituting the words 'four years' in the place of 'three years'.3. The writ petition in essence was filed to challenge the constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1981, and the learned Judge by Judgment dated 6.11.1987, had allowed the writ petition by holding that the Act suffers from the want of legislative competence, and therefore it is ultra vires and void. It is against the said judgment, this w...
Narasimhan Vs. Balammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ211
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the legal representative of the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 1798 of 1974 on the file of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras against an order dismissing an application under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, to rescind the contract. The suit was filed by the respondent. herein for specific performance of an agreement dated 29.11.1973. Under the agreement the consideration agreed was Rs. 12,300, out of which a sum of Rs. 500 was paid in advance. It was agreed that the respondent should discharge the mortgage over the property executed by the vendor, the father of the present petitioner. It was further agreed that the transaction should be completed within three months from the date of the agreement and that after discharging the mortgage and paying certain taxes, the balance should be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed.2. The respondent averred in the suit that in spit...
Subbalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ330
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed by the defendants in O.S.No. 108 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, challenging the order of appointment of receiver passed in the above suit.2. The fact which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows: The appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) are the tenants while the respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) are the landlords. The subject matter of the suit is a lodge consisting of two items, namely a building which is described as A Schedule and furniture, fittings, costs, etc., which are described as B Schedule. The father of defendants 2 to 4, one P. Kumarasami Reddiar took the premises on lease as per an un-registered lease deed dated 19-9-1955 and agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 1,000 for A Schedule property and Rs. 100 for B Schedule property, and paid an advance of Rs. 5,000. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 1,700 and Rs. 300 respectively. Th...
Union of India Vs. Oceanic Export Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: 2000(116)ELT19(Mad)
ORDERSathiadev, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against the order, dated 8-7-1988 passed in W.M.P. Nos. 7594 of 1988 in W.P. No. 5263 of 1988, etc. (Batch). 2. The learned Judge has relied upon orders passed by this Court pending W.P. No. 6063 of 1988 to pass orders of injunction as prayed for. While passing the order on 8-7-1988 in W.M.Ps filed in W.P. No. 6083 of 1988, the learned Judge had relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 1126 and 1127 of 1985 and, therefore, made the order of interim injunction absolute. In allowing these Writ appeals by order, dated 13-5-1986, a Writ of Mandamus was issued forbearing the respondent therein from taking any proceedings or action against the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962. Since these writ appeals are preferred against order passed in interlocutory application and as the Writ Petitions themselves are pending, disposal and elaborate arguments have been advanced by Counsel appearing for both parties, yet...
Geethanjali Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. V. Thiruvengadathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Mad)115
Janarthanam J. 1. The petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 29 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Madurai. 2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (Assessment Range No. 1), Madurai, launched prosecution against petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 (accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10) and three others (accused Nos. 5, 8 and 9) for the offenses under sections 120B read with sections 193, 196, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income tax Act, 1961. The first petitioner is a limited company, a spinning mill manufacturing cotton yarn. The second petitioner is its managing director. Petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 are its directors and the seventh petitioner is its secretary. The first petitioner-company furnished its income tax return and connected statements declaring an income of Rs. 1,11,370 for the fifteen months' period ending with March 31, 1980, claimin...
V.M. Dakshinamurthy and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC222(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. All these applications are filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. Nos. 557 to 581 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram. 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram (North), launched criminal prosecution by filing 25 complaints against the petitioners (accused 1 to 5) and another by name Gopal (accused No. 6) for violation of the provisions of rules 26 and 53 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, for non-furnishing of the returns within the respective period. The first petitioner is the proprietor of the theatre Raja Talkies, Wallajabad, Chengalpattu district. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the sons of the first petitioner. The sixth petitioner is a stranger. All the petitioners obtained a licence for the running of the cinema theatre by exhibiting films and the licence so taken by them expired on 25th June, 1983. Thereafter also the theatre was exhibiting films even without a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »