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.
Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras Vs. Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad224
Mohan, J.1. The question that arises for our determination is, whether an unregistered association can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned counsel for the appellant wants to strongly rely upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in A. B. S. K. Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, : (1981)ILLJ209SC and particularly the observations in paragraph 63 at page 317.3. As against this, learned Government pleader would rely upon a judgment of a Division Bench reported in Writ Appl. Nos. 49 to 52 and 58 to 60 of 1983, relied on in North Arcot District Pawn Brokers' Association v. Secy, to Govt. of India : (1975)1MLJ290 . Further reliance is placed on Umesh Chand v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, : AIR1984All46 (FB).4. Having regard to the recent trend of the case law enabling even a body of persons to agitate a common cause under writ jurisdiction, we are of the view that the Writ Appeal Nos. 49 to 52 and 58 to 60 of 1983, of this Court referred to and cited i...
Regional Commissioner, E.P.F. Vs. Kamaraj Textiles and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR540]; (1991)ILLJ521Mad
S. Mohan, C.J.1. The reference arises out of an order made by S. Natarajan & Nainar Sundaram, JJ. to the following effect:--'Can the provisions of the Act (The Employees' Provident Funds are Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) be enforced when the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act is pending adjudication before the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act?'In other words, where an employer approaches the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act for an adjudication of any one of the matters contemplated under the section, during the pendency of those proceedings, whether the enquiry stipulated under Section 7-A could be undertaken and the liability enforced. For long this court has taken the view that where a moot question arises about the applicability of the Act by reason of the application filed before the Central Government under Section 19-A, during the pendency of the application, no proceeding can take place under Section 7-A of the Act. Unfor...
D. Palanichamy Pillai Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR41(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J.1. These writ petitions have been directed against the order dated June 12, 1981, passed by the second respondent rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the first respondent for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner himself has applied under section 65(1) of the Act for compounding and on that basis assessments have been made. Against the orders of assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional authority has verified the records and found that the assessee did not apply for reducing the holdings in Form No. VIII-B and that he agreed to be assessed along with the lands purchased by the wives. The Assessing Officer has assessed the property of Tmt. Velammal with that of the petitioner and his wife, Murugayammal, on the ground that both the ladies and the petitioner are commonly enjoying the property and that the petitioner had alread...
Madras Citizens Progressive Council Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1989
Reported in: [1991]189ITR416(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner seeks from this court a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate criminal proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 to 12 for an offence under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioner, claiming to be the chairperson of the Madras Citizen's Progressive Council, has filed this writ petition before this court. Her complaint seems to be that respondents Nos. 6 to 9 entered into an agreement with the fifth respondent for sale of a particular property during the year 1987 and, according to the agreement, the value was fixed at Rs. 9,90,000, but when it came to be registered it was registered only for Rs. 3,50,000. The further allegation is that the petitioner informed the Income-tax Department about the illegal transaction and the suppression of the purchase money by the purchaser. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have not taken proper action even though the tenth respondent enquired into the matter. The petitioner c...
G. Chandrasekhar Vs. Chairman, Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ5Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner has come up before this Court praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced subsistence allowance payable to him with effect from 4th December 1986 till date and continue to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance till the order of suspension dated 4th September 1986 is revoked. 2. The petitioner who was appointed as a Traffic Manager of the Madras Trust (the respondent herein) was the Head of the Traffic Department of the Madras Port Trust under the provisions governed by Ss. 24(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Central Act 38 of 1963 applies to him. While the petitioner was working as a Traffic Manager, the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case in R.C. No. 38 of 1986 under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the petitioner and the respondent Madras Port Trust was informed by proceedings dated 25th June 1986. In accordance with the...
The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Vs. Sangama Nadar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Mad20
ORDER1. The petitioner, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, is the revision petitioner. There was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in respect of the enhanced compensation claimed by the land owners in respect of the land belonging to them acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a petition under Or. 1, Rule 10 and S. 151, C.P.C. r/w Sections 3(b) and 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act praying that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to be added as a party in the Land Acquisition O.P. pending before that Court and permitting the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to cross-examine the witness examined on behalf of the claimants and also permitting the Housing Board to adduce evidence on its behalf with regard to the enhanced amount claimed by the claimants. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the contentions put forward by the petitioner, Housi...
K.V. Ramamurthi and ors. Vs. the Food Inspector, Thiruvannamalai Munic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1426
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 184 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Food Inspector attached to Tiruvannamalai Municipality, at 10.00 a.m. on 23-2-1984 inspected the premises at No. 3 Kammala Street, Tiruvannamalai where Gemini Tata Tea Dust was stored for sale. At that time A3 the Manager was present. A1 and A2 are partners and A4 is the selling agent and A5 is the manufacturer of Gemini Tata Tea Dust. During inspection the Food Inspector found that 150 cases of Gemini Tata Tea Dust were stored for sale in the premises. He verified the Bill issued by A4 to M/s. P.V.R.J. and Co-Tiruvannamalai. Besides, he also verified the label on the caskets. Such verification revealed the following defects :- (1) The label found on the casket did not specify batch Number and Code number, as required by Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; ...
R. Radha Vs. N.R. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ291
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2144 days in filing the appeal against the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No. 4683 of 1982 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 4683 of 1982 for specific performance of sale to her of the half share of the suit property bearing premises No. 414 Raja Naicken Thottam, Vannia Teynampet, Madras. She was not at all served with summons in the said suit and the respondent managed to have the suit summons not served on her land obtained anex parte decree on 9th November, 1982. After obtaining the ex parte decree, the respondent filed C.P. No. 1440 of 1983, for execution of the ex parte decree for getting sale deed. The petitioner was served with notice in the said execution petition. Thereafter, she came to know of the passing of the ex parte decree....
The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Represented by Its Executive Engin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ345
ORDERP.K. Sethuraman, J.1. The petitioner, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, is the revision petitioner. There was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in respect of the enhanced compensation claimed by the landowners in respect of the land belonging to them acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151, C.P.C. read with. Sections 3(b) and 50(2) of the/Land Acquisition Act praying that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to be Added as a party in the Land Acquisition O.P. pending before that Court and permitting the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and also permitting the Housing Board to adduce evidence on its behalf with regard to the enhanced amount claimed by the claimed by the claimants. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the...
Fleming India Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ249
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These suits, C.S. Nos. 1143 to 1149 of 1988 and C.S. No. 1220 of 1988 are actions in passing off in trade marks. C.S. No. 1143 of 1988 is by the firm Fleming (India) Bangalore against Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Gujarat and the 2nd defendant M. Apotheke (P) Ltd., Bangalore. C.S. Nos. 1144, 1145, 1146 and 1148 of 1988 are by the same plaintiff against the above said Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Only. C.S. Nos. 1147 and 1149 of 1988 are by Antox India (P)Ltd., Bangalore, a sister concern of the above said Fleming (India) against the above said defendant Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. only. The above said Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. is a drug and pharmaceutical manufacturer and has divisions as Sarabhai Chemicals, S.G. Pharmaceuticals, etc, C.S. Nos. 1220 of 1988 is by the above said Antox India (P) Ltd., against the first defendant Wander Limited, Bombay and the 2nd defendant Alfred Berg & Company (I) Private Limited, Madras.2. In these eight suits, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »