Chennai Court August 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.
Kaliammal and ors. Vs. S.A.S. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ212
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal passed in an application, EA. No. 313 of 1983 in E.P. No. 101 of 1977 in O.S. No. 537 of 1972 filed under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows:The first respondent obtained a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged properties on 17.10.1974 and a final decree on 9.7.1976. In pursuance of the same, E.P. No. 101 of 1977 was filed before the Sub Judge, Madurai. The first item of the properties was sold to the second respondent A.R. Nachiappan on 13.12.1982 for Rs. 35,000. In pursuance of the said sale, the second respondent deposited 1/4th of the sale amount, namely, Rs. 8,775 and the matter was posted for confirmation of sale on 12.2.1983. The balance of sale amount, was also deposited on 24.12.1982. A sum of Rs. 76,850.07 was deposited by the counsel for the fourth defendant on 31.1.1983 after filing...
Sp. Dhanalakshmi Vs. Assistant Director of Investigation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1989
Reported in: [1992]194ITR349(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hand over the petitioner's stridhana jewels (ten items listed in the annexure to the petition) to her. 2. Notice of motion was ordered on July 19, 1989. 3. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram appears for the respondent on instructions. 4. The writ petitioner was an assessee under the Income-tax Act for the year 1977-78. She alleges that, in her return for the year 1977-78, she included her wealth for 1977-78 and 1978-79 claiming that the stridhana jewels listed along with the return less the liability due by her was less than the taxable limit. It seems that the petitioner's father-in-law's house was raided in April, 1982, and a panchanama was prepared in which the jewels are listed as belonging to her. The allegation is that so far no order has been passed by the Income-tax Department on the petition even though seven years have gone by. It seems that, during 1984, the doors of the roo...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Bakul Cashew Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1989
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC65
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 3676 of 1981 are the appellants and the petitioner is the sole respondent therein. On the learned judge remitting the matter for fresh consideration in the light of what had been stated in his judgment dated 8.4.1983 [reported as Bakul Cashew Co. v. Union of India and Ors. in 1984 2 ECC 289 (Mad), this writ appeal is preferred. 2. The petitioner (ranking of parties as in W.P.) had exported 5,000 tonnes of tapioca chips after getting customs clearance on 2.2.1978. The goods were not assessed to any duty. Since the buyer required supply of another 250 tonnes of tapioca chips, that consignment was exported on 13.2.1978. The Customs authorities demanded export duty at Rs. 125/- per tonne, and the petitioner paid the same without prejudice to its right to claim refund. Thereafter, for the export made on 2.2.1978, it was called upon to pay export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- treating it as, 'animal feed' liable to export duty under item No. 21 of...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ429
S. Ramalingam, J.1. The respondent was working as a Statistical Inspector in the Department of Statistics. By G.O.Ms.No.105, Home, dated 10.1.1979, he was temporarily appointed by transfer as Judicial Second Class Magistrate under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service Rules. However, the respondent retained his lien in the parent Department.2. By G.O.Ms.No.2256, Home, dated 24.9.1981, in exercise of the powers under Rule 13(3) of the said Rules, the Government of Tamil Nadu terminated the service of the respondent as temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate and the Registrar, High Court, Madras was requested to revert him to his parent department. Accordingly, by orders made on 15.10.1981 the respondent was reverted to his parent Department. Challenging the Orders made in G.O. Ms. No. 2256 Home, dated 24.9.1981, and the Order dated 15.10.1981, the respondent filed W.P. No. 11143 of 1981 for the issue of a writ of certiorari. He pleaded that the Order reverting him to hi...
R. Jayachandran Vs. Soletti Lakshmana Chettiar Trust, Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ452
Bellie, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent against him was dismissed by the trial Court but the first appellate Court decreed the suit.2. The plaintiff is Soletti Lakshmanan Chettiar Trust represented by its Managing Trustee N.k.Sreeramulu Chetti. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendant, appellant herein, is a tenant in its premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 and he executed a tenancy agreement in 1971; he fell in arrears and there was a rent arrears of Rs. 630; a notice of termination was issued to him and inspite of the demand he is not vacating. Hence the suit.3. The defendant admitted the tenancy; but however contended that it was a yearly tenancy, and he further contended that he did not execute any tenancy agreement as alleged. He also contended that the tenancy is governed by Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and therefore the suit is not maintainable. He further con-tended that there is no valid notice ...
J. Muthukrishnan and anr., Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2570
ORDER1. All these applications had been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 13 of 1988 (Popularly known as 'Robin Mayne Case') on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, who is empowered under the Criminal Law Amendment Act as a 'Special Judge' to try cases investigated by the C.B.I. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of all these applications may succinctly be stated :- (a) Accused 1, Robin Mayne, is a close friend of accused 31, ex-Minister of Tamil Nadu for Agriculture wielding considerable influence not only with him but other Government officials of different departments. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing Board, having huge deposit resources, had been investing in the ratio of 1 : 1 with the Co-operative banks and nationalised only whey they wanted to deposit with the scheduled bank Government's permission had to be obtained. This sort of a procedure was prevailing till unto November, 1983. Thereafte...
M. JamaluddIn Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC145
ORDERBakthavatsalam. J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:.to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondent or any other officer acting under or on behalf of him to return the Petitioner's passport No: C 519543 seized by the Respondent's Officers on 19-5-1989, to the petitioners and pass....2. The Petitioner is a native of Adiramapatinam in Tanjore District and got a job in Dubai and he has been working there. It seems that he came to India on 20th February 1989 and he left his native place on 17.5.1989. The allegation in the affidavit is that when certain people visited the Petitioner's house to see him off, they handed over certain envelopes to be carried to Dubai. With these envelopes, the Petitioner reached Madras Airport and the allegation is that he was enquired by the Enforcement Officer and was detained till 6.00 p.m. The Petitioner states that though he had nothing to do with the letters and envelopes or oth...
Ranganayakiammal (Died) and Another Vs. R. Srinivasaraghavan and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad379
1. Interpretation of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with reference to the facts of the case arises in this Second Appeal.2. It appears 35 cents of land of one Ramaswamy Iyengar was acquired by the Government under Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed for Rs. 2,181/-. There were two claimants for this amount. One is Ranganayakiammal -- Ramaswamy Iyen-gar's second wife and the other is Srinivasa-raghavan -- son of Ramaswamy Iyengar through his first wife, each of them making a claim for the entire amount. Because of this dispute the matter was referred to the Court.3. The said Ramaswamy Iyengar had executed a Will Ex. B2 dated 8-8-1943. The said land acquired by the Government was one of the items scheduled in the Will. As per the terms of the Will Ranganayakiammal is to enjoy the land during her life time and after her Srinivasaraghavan is to take the property absolutely. Ranganayakiammal will have no right to dispose of the land. Ranganayakiammal contended that thou...
Ranganayakiammal (Died) and anr. Vs. R. Srinivasaraghavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ279
1. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with reference to the facts of the case arises in this second appeal.2. It appears 35 cents of land of one Ramaswamy Iyengar was acquired by the Government under Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed for Rs. 2,181. There were two claimant's for this amount. One is Ranganayakiammal - Ramaswamy Iyengar's Second wife and the other is Srinivasaraghavan - son Ramaswamy Iyengar through his first wife, each of them making a claim for the entire amount. Because of this dispute the matter was referred to the Court.3. The said Ramaswamy Iyengar had executed a will Ex.B2 dated 8-8-1943. The said land acquired by the Government was one of the items scheduled in the will. As per the terms of the will Ranganayakiammal is to enjoy the land during her life-time and after her Srinivasaraghavan is to take the property absolutely. Ranganayakiammal will have no right to dispose of the land. Ranganayakiammal contended that though she...
N.A. Abdul Subhan Vs. G. Alima Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ140
Bellie, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal N.A Abdul Subhan, is a tenant in the suit property. As against him a suit O.S. No. 815 of 1971 was filed for eviction by two plaintiffs viz., G. Abdul Razaak and G. Mustapa Kamal as landlords of the same. The appellant herein who was the defendant in that suit filed a petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That is O.P. No. 76 of 1971. The said O.P. was allowed and the property was ordered to be sold to the tenant, and the suit was dismissed. Against this the defendants 1 and 2 in the present suit who were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 815 of 1971 filed an appeal and the appeal was dismissed. They also took the matter to the High Court and there also they were not successful. While so the present suit has been filed by Alima Bivi alleging that she is also one of the owners of the property and in the suit O.S. No. 815 of 1971 she was not a party and therefore the orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »