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.
K.M.M. Mohamed Yousuf Vs. Thunaivan Bus Service (Firm) and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad318
ORDERSathiadev, J. 1. The point involved in the appeal revolves round the interpretation of Rule 153-B(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The appellant made an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, on a notification issued under S. 57(2) of the Act. fixing the last date lor receipt of applications up to 5.00 P.M. on 29-2-1980. The appellant made an application, but he had not paid the challan fees oi Rs. 750 - by that date. Therefore, in compliance with Rule 153-B(ii), in the notification made under S. 57(3) of the Act, it was disclosed that he has to submit the treasury receipt about payment of the prescribed fee by 27-3-1980. It was on that date he paid the ices and produced the treasury receipt. Both the appellate authority and the learned Judge held that non-payment of the fee by the last date fixed as 29-2-1980, had disentitled the appellant to secure the permit,2. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Natesan submits that, whe...
i. Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. A. Veeraraghavalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ138
Abdul Hadi, J.1. C.M.A. No. 1030 of 1989 is against the Order dated 19.10.1989 passed in I.A. No. 12157 of 1989 in O.S. No. 5733 of 1989 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the said I.A. C.M.A. No. 1031 of 1989 is also against the dismissal Order passed on the same date in I.A. No. 19791 of 1989 in the same suit. These C.M.As. are filed by the plaintiff in the suit and the suit is for recovery of a sum of money said to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant under a promissory note. The former I.A. was to issue an order of interim injunction, restraining the garnishee, the second respondent in the said I.A., from paying a sum of Rs. 36,575 with interest to the defendant - Ist respondent therein, pending disposal of the suit. The latter I.A. is for directing the said garnishee to deposit the said sum into the trial Court. Admittedly, the said sum represents certain retirement benefits of the defendant, who was working as an employee under...
Emanuel Teachers' Training Institute Vs. the Director of School Educat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ115
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The writ petition is directed against an order of the first respondent refusing to grant recognition to the Teachers' Training Institute for Women at Vallam, Tirunelveli District.2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner filed an application for starting a Teachers' Training Institute for Women at Vallam, Tirunelveli District, on 10.12.1985. He has submitted his application for recognition to the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) who is the competent authority under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977. The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) examined the proposal and rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there was no educational need to start any Teachers' Training Institute for Women in Tirunelveli District as there were already one Government Teachers' Training Institute for women besides 5 aided Teachers' Training Institute for wom...
Shriram Finance Represented by Its Partner T. Jayaraman Vs. S. Manohar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ545
ORDERRatnam, J.1. Admittedly, there had been an inordinate delay of 1288 days in the filing of the appeal by the respondent herein before the City Civil Court, Madras. In C.M.P.N0.2796 of 1988, the respondent had prayed for the condonation of that delay. In the course of the affidavit filed in support of that application, the respondent admitted that after the suit was decreed on 8.4.1985, he had applied for a copy of judgment and decree and had also secured those copies even as early as 13.10.1986. The respondent further stated due to circumstances beyond his control, the appeal could not be preferred in time. In paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, the respondent had set out that there were some litigations between him and the partner of Ratna Offset Printing Works and other proceedings for the dissolution of the partnership itself and there were talks of compromise. The affidavit also referred to the papers having been left at Madras and becoming not tradeable. Though these reasons have ...
Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ222
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. W.P. No. 1390 of 1989 is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1293, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.9.1988 and to quash the same and also to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forbear from permitting the fourth respondent herein from putting up any construction in Door Nos. 10 and 11 Haddows Road, Madras-6 contrary to the Building Regulations now in force.2. W.P. No. 1391 is filed by two other persons for the same relief asked by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1390 of 1989.3. W.P. Nos. 5651 and 5652 of 1989 are filed for the issuance of a writ of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in letter No. 63680/U.D.I. (I)/88-1 dated 25.10.1988 and the consequential proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 in Planning Permit No. 6157, dated 12.12.88 and the Building Permit No. 17153, dated 5.1.1989 respectively and to quash t...
Smt. Daksha R. Sheth Vs. Seventh Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD83(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal reiterates the claim for deduction under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual. She was in receipt of a share of income from the Ramesh Trust in which she was a beneficiary. She claimed that of the said share a sum of Rs. 3,300 represented interest from bank which was eligible for deduction under section 80L. The I. T. O. was of the opinion that since Ramesh Trust was assessed in the status of an Association of Persons, the assessee was not eligible to the deduction in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 80L. This was confirmed on appeal.3. In the further appeal before us it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the trust returned the income only a representative capacity but the status was taken as 'Association of Persons' for assessment purposes and it could not have any bearing on the question whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction as the beneficial...
Gayatri Devi Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR1132(Mad)
1. This writ petition is directed against Income-tax Department for restraining them from exercising their powers under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the Department, a sum of Rs. 35,475 was due from the petitioner's mother by name Annapoorani by way of tax arrears payable by Amudham Enterprises in which she was a partner. It is not in dispute that under the dissolution deed of the partnership, the petitioner's mother had to discharge the income-tax liability. According to the Department, the petitioner herein who is the daughter of the assessee was liable to pay sum of Rs. 29,367.90 to her mother as she had utilised the amount belonging to the mother which was kept in fixed deposit with the Danalakshmi Bank Ltd., under account No. 39729/9/87 dated February 13, 1987. The Income-tax Department called upon the bank to pay the amount to the Department towards the arrears of tax payable to pay petitioner's mother. The bank sent a reply to the effect that the said ...
S. Damodaran Pillai Vs. S. Ananthakrishnan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ494
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against an order for delivery of possession passed in E.P.No.62 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.2. In O.S.No.132 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that he was a tenant, a decree was passed. As against that the petitioner preferred an appeal A.S.No.132 of 1983. In the appeal the parties filed a joint memorandum and recording the same, in terms thereof a decree was passed. The joint memorandum reads:The Respondent agrees to grant time by one year from today for the appellant to vacate the suit house bearing K.N.M.C.No.10/1/77. Thilagar Street, Nagercoil. The appellant agrees to vacate the above said premises on the expiry of one year from today. Each party will bear his cost in the above appeal.It appears the petitioner did not vacate the house within one year as stated in the memorandum and therefore the respondent filed an Execution Petition for e...
N. Sekaran Vs. Nallammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ70
E.J. Bellie, J.1. The question of considering whether the suit will Ex.A. 4 is genuine arises in this second appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiff Nallammal, first respondent herein, against two defendants for declaration of title and injunction has been decreed by the trial court. First defendant is the mother and second defendant is her son. The second defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.2. One Nallasamy Gounder in a partition between himself and his son second defendant obtained suit items 1 to 7 for his share. According to the plaintiff Nallammal, he executed a will Ex. A. 4 on 5-84971 bequeathing in her favour the properties items 1 to 7 along with item 8. Item 8 had been already sold to her on 9-8-1968 by Nallasamy. Nallasamy died on 13-6-1975. From that date onwards the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. While so the defendants without any manner of right attempted to disturb the plaintiff's possession and therefore the suit for decl...
Gayatri Devi Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)245; [1990]186ITR132(Mad)
This writ petition is directed against Income-tax Department for restraining them from exercising their powers under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the Department, a sum of Rs. 35,475 was due from the petitioners mother by name Annapoorani by way of tax arrears payable by Amudham Enterprises in which she was a partner. It is not in dispute that under the dissolution deed of the partnership, the petitioners mother had to discharge the income-tax liability. According to the Department, the petitioner herein who is the daughter of the assessee was liable to pay sum of Rs. 29,367.90 to her mother as she had utilised the amount belonging to the mother which was kept in fixed deposit with the Danalakshmi Bank Ltd., under account No. 39729/9/87 dated February 13, 1987. The Income-tax Department called upon the bank to pay the amount to the Department towards the arrears of tax payable to pay petitioners mother. The bank sent a reply to the effect that the said amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »