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.
Vythilingam Chettiar Vs. Rangaswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad135
Sathiadev, J.1. Defendant in An unregistered suit (S.R. No. 43243 of 1979) on the file of the District Munsif's Court; Vridhachalam, is the petitioner herein. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2600 being the one-half of the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 2-6-1974, executed by the defendant for Rs. 4000, payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum, Plaintiff filed O.S.738 of 1979 in the same court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2514 towards one-half of the principal and interest due on the above promissory note under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, then in force, and got a decree on 20-6-1979. The said decree had not been executed and satisfied in full. After coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, he has filed the present suit for recovery of the amount, which is permissible under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. Learned District Munsif by order dt. 30-9-1980 held that the plaintiff could file only one suit on the basis of one cause of act...
Rathinam Vs. Syed Beevi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ285
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. In all these revision petitions, the common question involved is whether in a petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, if the landlady dies pending its disposal it open to her legal representatives to bring themselves on record for continuing the proceedings, when the undertaking to be given under Section 14(2) is claimed to be personal in nature?2. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority having held that the legal representatives could continue the proceedings, these Revision Petitions have been preferred by the respective tenants under late Syed Beevi, it is not in dispute that she was the landlady as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act in respect of the respective premises. She filed eviction petition under Section 14(i)(b) and when they were pending disposal, she died on 2.7.1986. Equally, it not in dispute that the second respondent is her husband and respondents 3 to 5 are their children. A claim is put forth by te...
Ramakrishnan and Bros. Vs. T.P.M. Manickavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ377
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before both the forms has preferred this revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows:For the sake of convenience we will adopt the array of parties before the Rent Controller, in this revision. The petitioner, who is the respondent in this revision, is the landlady, and she has filed the petition under Section 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition mentioned property on 23-9-1975. The respondent has been occupying the premises for carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 155. the rent is to be paid on the 5th of the next month. The respondent attorned the oral tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition R.C.OP.No. 84 of 1978 was filed and it was allo...
Borax Morarji Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1988
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC223
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of borax out of imported kernite or rasorite. In or about June 1979, the fifth respondent, who was the canalising agent imported 4333.370 M.Ts. of kernite. The goods were transferred to the petitioner by the fifth respondent and the petitioner was authorised to clear the goods. The petitioner filed the bill of entry for home consumption and gave the classification of the imported goods as falling under item 25.01/32. The first respondent assessed the goods to duty and levied a duty of Rs. 35,80,542.70 provisionally. The petitioner cleared the goods. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter dated 23.12.1980 from the first respondent (Assistant Collector of Customs), purporting to be under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, stating that the duty in respect of the imported goods, which was assessed provisionally has since been finally assessed and called upon the petitioner to pay an additional sum of Rs. 35,00,975.22. The pet...
Raja Rajan theatre Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad7
ORDER1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in G.O.P. No. 762 dt. 15-7-83, on the file of 3rd respondent made pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 651 R.D. & L.A. dt. 9-5-83, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to collect tax only under S. 5-A/5-B of Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act 1939.2. It is relevant to note that Raja RajanTheatre, the petitioner herein, is a permanenttheatre within Thanjavur Municipal limitfrom 21-2-1983. The petitioner opted to paytax under S. 5(B) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 with effect from 21-2-1983 when Thanjavur Municipality was aSelection Grade Municipality. The tax payable was 31% of the gross collection capacityfor a show multiplied by 23. By G.O.(P)No. 762, Commercial Taxes and ReligiousEndowments, dt. 25-7-1983, the State Government issued a Notification under S. 16-Aof the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax.A...
The Director of Government Examinations and anr. Vs. D. Sathianathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ270
ORDERNuinar Sundaram, J.1. The Respondent's Secondary Grade Training School Leaving Certificate No. 5168 March 1956 was held to be a bogus one and it was cancelled by the first appellant. This happened initially on 12.4.1969. The respondent came to this Court in W.P.3819 of 1969, impugning the said order and Palaniswamy J. by order dt.18.3.1971, allowed the writ petition and directed the first appellant to hold an enquiry, after issuing notice to the respondent to find out whether the said certificate held by the respondent is a genuine one or not. The salient features taken note of by the learned Judge may be summed up as follows:(i) The Tabulation Marks Register could not be the final word on the subject and the marks entered in the said register might have been entered by mistake.(ii) The respondent's results have been gazetted as of success.(iii) The first appellant has to establish the correctness or otherwise of the marks entered in the tabulation marks register with reference to...
C.S. Sampath and ors. Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ60
ORDERRatnam, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the land owner (1st petitioner) and others, arising under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (Act LVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the lands settled by the father of the 1st petitioner, one Srinivasa Venkata Raghavachariar (hereinafter referred to as 'Srinivasa for short) in favour of four minor sons and unmarried daughter of the 1st petitioner, can be included in the holding of the family of the 1st petitioner or not. In the course of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act against the 1st petitioner, the Authorised Officer held that though Srinivasa had settled on 29.9.1970 an extent of 22.90 ordinary acres equivalent to 10.99 std. acres in favour of his minor grandsons and unmarried grand daughter, yet, by reason of the definition of 'family' under Section 3(14) of the Act,...
N.K. Mohnot Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1988
Reported in: [1992]195ITR72(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The petitioner, who is the first accused in C. C. No. 174 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras, facing trial for offences under sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 and 379, I.P.C., and other offences under the Indian Penal Code and section 277 of the Income-tax Act, invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the trial. 2. Facts briefly are : The respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner and 19 others for the above offence relating to forging tax deduction certificates issued by the Madras Race Club at Madras and Uthagamandalam, forging and submitting false income returns and obtaining refund orders of income-tax deducted from the prize-winners, encashing the same and appropriating them to themselves. The petitioner is an income-tax practitioner, while the co-accused are his father, his brothers, his mother, his wife, all of the undivided famil...
A. Mohammed Yousuf and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ358
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ to quash the notification issued by the first respondent - State of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 817 Housing and Urban Development dated 31.5.1983 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 22.6.1983 in so far as it related to part of R.S.No. 543/3, Nungambakkam village, Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras District belonging to the petitioner.2. The first petitioner is the father and petitioners 2 to 8 are his sons and daughters. An extent of 11 grounds and 1202 sq.ft. with a building extending about 21/2 grounds in part of R.S.No. 543/3 in Village Road, Nungambakkam in the city of Madras originally belonged to late Asia Bibi, wife of first petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 to 8. On her death on 1-3-1981 the petitioners became entitled to the same in severality as heirs. The building in the said land is occupied by the petitioners an...
G.P. Purushothaman Vs. C.O. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ1
Sathiadev, J.1. (WA. No. 144 of 1987)-Fourth respondent in W.P. No. 1763 of 1980 is the appellant. The writ petitioner and the three other respondents therein, are the respondents herein. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition).2. Petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the order of third respondent dated 8.8.1979 in and by which the seniority of the fourth respondent was revised in the comprehensive seniority list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-I. The impugned order was issued based on the order of Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1890, Home (Transport II) dated 27.7.1979. In the 1972 List, petitioner was ranked as No. 39, and fourth respondent as No. 51. By virtue of the impugned order, he became senior to petitioner by 12 places. Hence, when he filed the writ petition, the learned Judge allowed it on two grounds viz., (1) the seniority assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the lower category will not be relevant for the next higher category, and (2) the revision o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »