Chennai Court January 1990 Judgments
S. Rangaranj Vs. Dr. P.R. Subbayyaan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ95
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This first appeal is by the first-defendant in O.S. No. 267 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The respondents herein are as follows: The first respondent is the first-plaintiff; the second-respondent is the second-plaintiff; the third respondent is the third-defendant and the fourth respondent is the fourth defendant. Defendants 2 and 5 in the suit have been given up in the appeal. The parties shall be referred to by us as per their array in the suit for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs laid the suit for partition and separate possession, each of the plaintiffs claiming a one-third share and they conceded the remaining one-third share for the first-defendant. The relationship amongst the parties is as follows: The first-plaintiff earlier married the fifth-defendant. She was divorced by a decree of divorce on 23.6.1961 in O.P.No.54 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. During the subsistence of the marriage betw...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. A. Joseph Louis.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD485(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Rangayya, Accountant Member - These two appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) for the asst. years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. The assessee is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of arrack and its sale. For the purpose of manufacture of arrack, the assessee had installed certain machinery and plant during the accounting years relevant to the asst. years 1983-84 and 1984-85. He claimed investment allowance in respect of the machinery and plant installed by him in his business as well as deductions under under section 80-I and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Though the industries manufacturing alcoholic spirits are not entitled to investment allowance because they are included in the 11th Schedule, such prohibition does not extend to small scale industries involving such business activity. It is accepted by the Department that the assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking and so the prohibition unde...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Delavai Vs. the Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad61; [1994]81CompCas446(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner, who claims to be the Chairman, Madras Provincial Consumers' Association, Convener, Civil Liberties Panel and the elected Honorary President of the Triplicane Co-operative Bank Limited, Madras-5, has filed this writ petition for issue of Mandamus directing (1) the third respondent to seek the expert opinion of the Auditor-General of India and act on his advice concerning the overseas operations of the first respondent during the period 1981 to 1987 in its branches at Sayapur, Singapore, Hongkong and Indonesia and (2) the respondents to place before this court the full Inspection Report of Shri A. Namasivayam, the present Execuive Director of the first respondent together with the original correspondence among them to enable this court to arrive at a fuller understanding of the issues raised in the affidavit of the petitioner and for formulating corrective guidelines that may be essential in preserving national wealth. The first respondent in the writ petition is ...
Tag this Judgment!indira and Others Vs. Dr. Vasantha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1798
ORDER1. The petitioners who are the members of the 'A' party in M.C. No. 4 of 1989 (R.O.C. No. 5001 of 1989) on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, challenge the correctness of the order dated 24-7-1989 made by the said Magistrate purporting to be one under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, declaring possession in favour of the first respondent, who was 'B' Party No. 1 before the lower Court in respect of a house situated at Door No. 7/16, Mudaliarpuram Fourth Street, Kodaikanal. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision will have to be stated now. The first petitioner is the owner of the disputed house. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the nephew of the second petitioner. The first respondent is a neighbour of the first petitioner and the second respondent is her husband. The third respondent is a house broker. 3. The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal, who had registere...
Tag this Judgment!Palania Pillai and Another Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1563
1. The appellants Palania Pillai and K. Rasheed Ahmed were tried in C.C. No. 11 of 1985 on the fire of the IX Additional Special Judge, Madras, for offences punishable under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161, I.P.C. The second appellant was charged with the aid of S. 109, I.P.C. Both the appellants were found guilty as charged and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No separate sentence was imposed in respect of the offence under S. 161, I.P.C. 2. The facts leading to the conviction of the two appellants need narration. The appellants will henceforth the referred to as A1 and A2 respectively. A1 at the relevant time was the Junior Engineer, Madras Telephone, Mambalam External. A2 was the Phone Inspector, Madras Telephones, attached to the same office. P.W. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Pugal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ268
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the same in all the three petitions, They have a common history though the prayers are different. The subject matter in W.P. Nos. 3407 of 1985 and 13236 of 1985 is the same relating to same survey numbers while the subject matter in W.P.No. 12608 of 1985 pertains to another set of lands in the same village. All the lands are situated in Palayakayal village, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Tirunelveli District formerly and now Chidambaranar District. It is necessary and convenient to set out the history in order to appreciate and understand the scope of the controversy in these petitions and decide the same.2. The petitioner appeared in person and argued his case. As the statements in the affidavits and counter affidavits were disputed, I directed the Government Pleader to produce all the concerned files in Court and I perused the original files themselves. The facts which I am setting out hereunder have been culled out by me from the original files.3. Ramach...
Tag this Judgment!The State Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ308
Bellie, J.1. The appellant herein is the Government of Tamil Nadu. It dismissed one Dr. Balasubramanian a Veterinary Surgeon working in the Animal Husbandry Department after making disciplinary proceedings against him. He filed the suit challenging that order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. But however in the appeal the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit and ordered reinstatement and also damages claimed.2. The facts in brief are: While the plaintiff was working as poultry Development Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandary at Tiruchirapalli there was a Scheme sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No. 2839, dated 17.11.1984 for grant of loans to poultry farmers and that Government Order was followed by G.O.Ms.No. 886 dated 8.3.1965 wherein terms and conditions for disbursement of loans were prescribed. In respect of implementation of the scheme four charges were framed against the plaintiff accusing him of receiving bribe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chelladurai and ors. Vs. K. Sivasami thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ459
ORDERSethuraman, J.1. These two revisions are sought to be filed against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 69/89 and 70/89 in O.S. No. 148 of 1983 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai. I.A. Nos. 69/70 and 70/89 are applications under Order VI Rules 17 and 18 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for correction of the father's name of the applicant as Karuthiah Thevar instead of Karuppiah Thevar in the cause title, pleadings, judgment and decree as well as in the sale deed to be executed in favour of the applicant in pursuance of the decree in the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale.2. The suit O.S.No.148 of 1983 was filed by the applicant/plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale and the suit was decreed in his favour and there was an appeal against the judgment and decree by the defendants and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, in pursuance of the decree an execution petition No.53 of 1987 was filed for getting the sale d...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Nainar Mohamed Vs. Khaja Mohideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad29
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition prays for extending the time to deposit the cost of Rs. 395.50 granted by the Order dated 2-1-1989 in C.M.P. No. 2051 of 1988 in this Second Appeal. By the said Order, interim stay granted already, was made absolute on condition that the petitioner herein deposited into the trial Court the said cost within 4 months from the above said date 2-1-1989. The said order also added that failing such compliance, the stay would stand vacated automatically. Thus, the petitioner herein ought to have deposited the cost before 2-5-1989. But, it was not deposited. This petition was filed only on 11-12-1989 for extension of the said time given, by another six weeks from the date of the order in this petition.2. Initially when I posed the question whether the present petition is maintainable since the original conditional order dated 2-1-1989 was passed with a default clause as stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in S. F...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Nainar Mohamed Vs. Khaja Mohideen, Through His Power Agent, Moham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ185
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition prays for extending the time to deposit the cost of Rs. 395.50 granted by the order dated 2.1.1989 in C.M.P. No. 2051 of 1988 in this Second Appeal. By the said Order, interim stay granted already, was made absolute on condition that the petitioner herein deposited into the trial court the said cost within 4 months from the abovesaid date, 2.1.1989. The said order also added that failing such compliance, the stay would stand vacated automatically. Thus, the petitioner herein ought to have deposited the cost before 2.5.1989. But, it was not deposited This petition was filed only on 11.12.1989 for extension of the said time given, by another six weeks from the date of the order in this petition.2. Initially when I posed the question whether the present petition is maintainable since the original conditional order dated 2.1.1989 was passed with a default clause as stated above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »