Chennai Court December 1989 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.
Veerayi Ammal Vs. Minor Masilamani, by Next Friend and Mother Saroja a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ173
Bellie, J.1. Genuineness of a will is in question in this second appeal. The defendant Veerayiammal is the appellant here.2. The suit was filed on the following allegations: The suit property originally belonged to one Ramasami Pillai. He married one Sivabagyam but within sixty days of the marriage they separated and Ramasami Pillai was living with Ponnusamy Pillai a son of one of his brothers. The first plaintiff Vaiyali is the son of Ramasami Pillai's an other brother. While so Ramasami Pillai executed a will dated 21.12.1963 bequeathing the suit properties to the first plaintiff Vaiyali and Ponnusami Pillai. Ponnusami Pillai died. Thereafter Ramasami Pillai was living with the heirs of Ponnusamy Pillai viz., plaintiffs 2 and 3. Ramasami Pillai's Brother's daughter Veerayi defendant was living in Pendamangalam. While Ramasami Pillai was living with her for some time and was not in a sound and disposing state of mind, she and her husband created a false will purporting to have been ex...
Govardhan Cement Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)37TTJ(Mad)195
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan (Judicial Member) - This appeal is directed against the disallowance made under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a company. It had taken on rent a residential premises at Madras for the stay of visiting officers of the assessee-company. It is stated that only the employees of the Bangalore branch, the auditor from Tirupati and the Managing Director used to stay in the premises and at no time was it occupied by any stranger. The assessee had however called it a guest house. In computing the income of the previous year ended 31-3-1984, corresponding to the assessment year 1984-85, the ITO disallowed the rent of Rs. 5,400 paid for this accommodation u/s. 37(4) of the Act. This was confirmed on appeal.3. In the further appeal before us it was contended on behalf of the assessee that though it was called a guest house it was not a guest house at all since no stranger was allowed to stay in it as that is the characteristic of the ...
P. Suresh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Mad8
ORDER1. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the selection of candidates for the first year M.B.B.S. course in the second respondent-Institute for the year 1989-90 and to quash the same insofar as the selection relates to the third respondent with Registered No. 0174 and direct the second respondent to admit the petitioner with Register No. 0298 against the first vacancy, if any, occasioned under Scheduled Caste category.3. The petitioner herein applied for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. course inJawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry and he was placed second in the waiting list against quota reserved for Scheduled Caste, with Register No. 0298. The third respondent herein, with Register No. 0174 was placed first in the waiting list against quota rese...
S.D. Ashok Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1963
ORDER1. Crl.M.P. No. 8989 of 1989 is a petition under section 482, Cr.P.C., filed by the accused in Crime No. 284 of 1989, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurantakam, within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam. The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court, to call for the records in Crime No. 284 of 1989 on the file of the respondent-Police Station and quash the first information report and further proceedings in pursuance of the said first information report, as an abuse of process of court. 2. Crl.M.P. No. 8990 of 1989 is a petition for stay filed by the accused, pending disposal of Crl.M.P. No. 8989 of 1989. 3. Bhaskaran, J. admitted Crl.M.P. No. 8989 of 1989 on 8-8-1989 and on the same day directed interim stay of further proceedings in Crime No. 284 of 1989 on the file of the respondent, for two weeks. The stay ordered was continued for three more weeks on 22-8-1989 and thereafter it does not appear, that the stay has been ex...
N. Sankaran Vs. S. Revathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC236
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Family Court at Madras in M.O.P. No. 586 of 1988. That was a petition presented by the appellant and the respondent jointly under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The Principal Family Court, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act, after entertaining the petition, adjourned it to a date six months later and on the adjourned date, on the parties appearing, made efforts to reconcile the differences between the parties. It is stated in the judgment of the Principal Family Court that these efforts did not succeed and the Principal Family Court proceeded to examine the parties. The appellant was examined as P.W. 1 and the respondent was examined as P.W. 2. It has come out in their evidence that their marriage was solemnised on 1-5-1983 a...
K.S. Ramarathinam Vs. the Management of Sri Venkateswara Fabricators ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ503
ORDERBellie, J.1. The order of the second respondent, the Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, in Industrial Dispute No. 442 of 1981 holding that the non-employment of the Writ Petitioner K.S. Ramarathinam is justified and his not entitled to any relief and consequently dismissing the dispute raised is challenged in this writ petition.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was employed as a general worker in the first respondent Company on a monthly pay of Rs. 425. He questioned the management's act of retrenching him and wanted reinstatement by filing Section 2-A petition before the Labour officer. Conciliation attempts failed. He was senior most worker and he was retrenched, without any reasons and compensation. No proper notice has been given to him. The requirement of law have not been complied with by the management before he was served with the termination order. Hence he is entitled to be reinstated.3. As against this the case of the first respondent...
N. Sankaran. Vs. S. Revathi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ398
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Family Court at Madras in M.O.P 586 of 1988. That was a petition presented by the appellant and the respondent jointly under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) (herein-after referred to as the Act) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The Principal Family Court, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of section 13-B of the Act, after entertaining the petition, adjourned it to a date six months latter and on the adjourned date, on the parties appearing, made efforts to reconcile the differences between the parties. It is a stated in the judgment of the Principal Family Court that these efforts did not succeed and the Principal Family Court proceeded to examine the parties. The appellant was examined as P.W.1 and the respondent was examined as P.W.2. It has come out in their evidence that their marriage was solemnised on 1.5.1983 at M...
R. Ramaswamy Vs. Seethammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ428
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This Second appeal arises out of O.S.No. 157 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Sattur, filed by the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of the sale agreement Ex.A-1, dated 15-12-1974 for selling the suit property belonging to the defendant, to the plaintiff for Rs. 700. Out of the above said sum of Rs. 700, Rs. 400 had already been paid as advance. The trial court decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defendant, the 1st appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit; Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff.2. The defence to the suit is that the defendant did not sign Ex.A-1 and there was no agreement between the parties for selling the properties. The plaintiff, apart from examining himself as P.W.1, examined the two attestors P.Ws.2 and 4 and the scribe of the document P.W.3, who is no doubt the father of the plaintiff. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1. There was no other witness on her si...
Indian Oxygen Ltd., Electro Factory, Industrial Estate Vs. Ganga Prasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ499
ORDERJ. Janarthanan, J.1. The revision petitioner is Indian Oxygen Limited, Madras, under whom the respondent herein is an employee, on 7.4.1988, the petitioner company served a charge memo and placed the respondent under suspension for certain misconduct on his part, on which he sent a reply on 11.4.1988. Thereafter, one Mr. Madhavaiah was appointed as Enquiry Officer, on completion of the enquiry on 2.12.1988, he submitted a report and on the basis of that report, a show cause notice had been issued as to why he should not be dismissed from service. At this stage, he filed Original Suit No. 188 of 1989 on the file of learned District Munsif, Poonamallee for the relief of declaration and injunction. He also filed I.A. No. 393 OF 1989 and obtained ad-interim injunction. After enquiry, ad-interim injunction granted earlier was made absolute. It is this order that is being challenged in the Civil Revision Petition.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would make a scat...
Parvathammal Vs. Gopal Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ23
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 350 of 1978 dated 6.10.1989.2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the awarding of costs against the appellant in a suit for redemption is justifiable.3. When the appeal came up for admission, having regard to the limited scope of the dispute between the parties, we have directed notice of motion. Accordingly, on receipt of notice, M/s. Pathy and Sundaram have entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. To enable the counsel for the respondents to get instructions we have adjourned the matter twice; finally by consent, we have taken up the appeal for final disposal. We heard the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides.4. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit. The suit was one filed by the respondents herein for redemption of a mortgage executed by defendants 2 to 8 in favour of the appellant. The suit for redemptio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »