Chennai Court March 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.
P. Kasilingam Vs. Bharathiar University and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ73Mad
Sathiadev, J 1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 12581 of 1988 is the appellant, and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein. The write petition was filed for issue of a write of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 16th September 1988. 2. In the supporting affidavit, he has stated as follows : He joined third respondent college in June 1966 as Associate Lecturer in Electrical Engineering. In 1974, he was promoted as Lecturer in Electrical, Electronics and Communication Engineering. After referring to several writ proceedings filed in the Court and the Supreme Court between himself and the college, he would state that on 30th April 1988, he attended the Annul Senate Meeting of the first respondent University to which he was selected unopposed in April, 1986. During the course of discussions in the meeting, in the presence of the Principal of the third respondent College, who was also present, he had made his speech about internal assessment marks bei...
R. Thamilarasan, Vs. the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ588Mad
Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J, as His Lordship then was) is 'Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?' 2. This question seems to loom large for quite some time not only in this Court but in the other High Courts as well, as could be seen from the cases cited by the counsel on both sides. 3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the questions in the negative. 5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on b...
P. Kannan and anr. Vs. the Director of Sugars and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ54
Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J.) as His Lordship then was) is.Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. This question seems to loom large for quite | some time not only in this Court but in the other High Court as well, as could be seen from the cases ' cited by the counsel on both sides.3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.Nos.607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative.4. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Narayanasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the negative.5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on both side...
K. Narayanan Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC134; 1990(47)ELT346(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Friday, the 2nd day of December, 1989 and Thursday, the 16th day of February, 1989 upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court dated 11-4-1988 and 12-4-1988 and made herein respectively, and the Counter affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer as aforesaid respective files of the Respondent comprised in the return of Respondents to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Abdul Kareem, for M. Abdul Nazeer, Advocate for the Petitioner, in both and of Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, in each of the Petitions, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order :- When M.M.P. Nos. 6003 and 6215 of 1988 in W.P. Nos. 4054 and 4218 of 1988 came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petitions were taken up for d...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamp Act) and Inspector Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad268
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This is 3 reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 2 of 1899 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question referred for our consideration runs as follows :'Whether the document dated 7-11-1976 executed by Thiru Gunapata Nainar, Thiru Appandai Nainar and Smt. Savithiriammal purporting to be a partition deed is just a partition or is an exchange as well as a partition?'Gopala Nainar and Appandai Nainar are the sons of Boopala Nainar. Savithiriammal is the widow of Boopala Nainar. The apparent tenor of the document, dated 7-11-1976, is one of partition. There is a reference to an earlier deed of partition dated 5-7-1970 and it is stated that by that deed, the lands, nanja and punja, were divided amongst the parties; and houses, vacant sites, and gardens were left undivided, and the partition, as per the deed dated 5-7-1970 was not given effect to and there was no separate enjoyment as per the division, because the division was unequal and there were quar...
Droupadhi Devi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC12
ORDERSivasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent to produce the body of Satishchandra Gupta, now detained, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Central Prison, Madras, before this court and set him at liberty.2. The impugned order of detention has been made by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods.3. The impugned order of detention contains detailed grounds on which the detenu has been detained. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the same in detail for the purpose of disposal of this petition.4. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised various contentions challenging the impugned order of...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. M. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR117(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.4. These references are directed to be posted before the Full Bench in view of the conflicting views prevailing between pronouncements of Division Benches of this court. The question referred in Tax Case No. 579 of 1977, a case arising under the Income-tax Act, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the gifted properties arose to the Hindu undivided family and it cannot be, therefore, clubbed with the assessee's individual income ' 5. The question referred in Tax Case No. 1450 of 1977, a case arising under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 2,61,136 belonged to the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, not assessable in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity ' 6. The assessee's father was one Meiyappa Chettiar. On June 5, 1966, the father issued...
Mohammed Zackria Sahib by Power of Attorney Abdul Gaffoor Sahib Vs. Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ254
Ratnam, J.1. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is support of this second appeal at the instance of the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1975, District Munisif's Court, Chidambaram, is that the father of the 1st plaintiff had attested the deed of exchange and therefore, the 1st plaintiff would be precluded from questioning the exchange deed and likewise, the 2nd plaintiff would not secure any title to the suit property by reason of the sale by the 1st plaintiff is favour of the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. It is common ground that the suit property belonged to one Gulam Hussain Sahib, father of the 1st plaintiff and his title to the suit property was declared in O.S. No. 65 of 1932, Sub-Court, Cuddalore, and he had executed that decree and had taken possession through court and was also in possession. Subsequently, under the original of Exs.A.1, he executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff appointing the mother of the 1st plaintiff as h...
Triplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Mad)173; [1989]179ITR492(Mad); [1989]45TAXMAN15(Mad)
THANIKACHALAM J. - These two writ petitions are filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to call for the records relating to the petitioner in C. No. 1241 (55-56) of 1977 T. N. II on the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu II, Madras - 34 (the first respondent herein), and to quash the order passed therein dated January 19, 1978, confirming the disallowance of the contribution made to the approved gratuity fund to the extent or Rs. 20,299 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 10,543 for the assessment year 1976-77 and, consequently, for a direction to allow the abovesaid amounts as deduction while computing the taxable income of the petitioner in the abovesaid two assessment years.According to the facts, the petitioner herein constituted a gratuity fund under an irrevocable deed of trust dated June 25, 1967. The gratuity fund was created in accordance with the provisions as contemplated under Par...
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Rashi Leather (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1989
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT10(Mad)
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for order upon perusing the petition and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy Mr. N. Jothi, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions, and of Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai for M/s. P. Ibrahim Halifulla and K. N. Basha advocates for the respondent in both the petitions, the Court made the following order :- (The order of the Court was made by the Honourable Officiating Chief Justice) ....... Having regard to some factual controversy which had given room for some lengthy arguments in these cases, it is but necessary, though these are interlocutory applications, that we have to set out the facts at some detail as otherwise the core of the matter cannot be appreciated. 2. The respondent herein (Mr. Rashi Leather Private Limited) had filed W.P. No. 4683 of 1984. The prayer in that writ petition was one for a mandamus for the issue of additional ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »