Chennai Court January 1990 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. Kanthammal Vs. D.S. Rajalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ364
Ratnam, J.1. O.S.A.S.R No. 97884 of 1984 is sought to be preferred by the 2nd defendant in C.S.No.82 of 1977, against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1988 passed in that suit The suit was laid for the recovery of amounts due under two mortgages dated 24-8-1955 and 10-7-1964. Some defences were raised by the appellant in the O.S. Appeal and the other defendant, in the suit, but ultimately, Maheswaran, J., held that the appellant in the O.S. Appeal will not be personally liable for the debts, though the properties claimed by her as belonging to her are liable to be proceeded against, as she did not have any title to those properties. The appellant seeks to question the correctness of this adjudication in the intended O.S.A ppeal.2. In the memorandum of valuation, the appellant had given the value of the suit at Rs. 1,96,220-20 and had further stated that a fixed court fee of Rs.100 is paid under Schedule II Article 3(A)(2)(c) of the Court fees Act The Registry entertained a doubt whe...
V. Sadayappan Vs. Director General of Health, Services Government of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Mad302
ORDER1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 9646 of 1989 is the petitioner herein and the respondent therein are the three respondents herein.2. The Writ Petition was filed to quash the communication dated 30-5-1989 of the first respondent and consequently direct respondents to provide one seat in P. G. Medical Course in any one of the recognised Medical Colleges for which Entrance Examination was conducted- by the All India Institute of Medical Science. 3. Petitioner/Appellant claims that he appeared for the All India Entrance Examination for admission to P. G. Medical Course (MD/MS/Diploma) and Dental Courses (MDS) on open merit. His register number was A.131634 and he secured 491st rank among the 1776 candidates selected on All India Basis. He was allotted a seat by the first respondent by communication dated 30-5-1989 in M.P. Shah Medical College, Jam Nagar, Gujarat State. He was under the bona fide impression that the said institution is recognised by the Indian Medical Council; and therefore,...
P.J. Sundararajan and anr. Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Unit Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ51a
ORDERS.T. Ramalingam, J.1. P.J. Sundararajan is the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition No. 8711 of 1989 as also in W.M.P. No. 12477 of 1989. Dasaseelan is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1990 as also in W.M.P. No. 12690 of 1989.2. W.M.P. No. 16023 of 1989 is to vacate the interim injunction obtained by Dasaseelan in W.M.P. No. 12690 of 1989 and W.M.P. No. 12064 of 1989 is to vacate the interim injunction obtained by P.J. Sundararajan in W.M.P. No. 12477 of 1989.3. Certain basic facts, which are not in dispute, may first be stated. P.J. Sundararajan and Dasaseelan, the respective writ petitioners in W.P. No. 8711 of 1989 and 8850 of 1989 are the Assistants in the Unit Trust of India, Madras Branch. The 1st respondent is the Deputy General Manager of the Unit Trust of India, Madras Regional Office. The 2nd respondent in both the petitions is the Enquiry Officer for the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said P.J. Sundararajan and Dasaseelan.4. Chargesheet was...
Bombay Cycle Importing Co. Vs. Ninth Income Tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD79(Mad)
ORDER1. ITA No. 3100/Mds/88 is by the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 and ITA. No. 3769/Mds/88 is by the Revenue for the assessment year 1984-85. In the assessee firm there were two partners Shri V. M. Ajmeera and Shri P. V. Ajmeera, who represented their respective H. U. F. Yet another partner was Smt. U. M. Ajmeera. Interest was paid on individual funds contributed by S/Sri V. M. Ajmeera and P. Y. Ajmeera. Such payment of interest amounted to Rs. 24,501 to Sri V. M. Ajmeera and Rs. 39,103 to Shri P. V. Ajmeera in the assessment year 1983-84. The I. T. O. added back these amounts by applying the provisions of section 40(b) and the C. I. T. (A) upheld the inclusion of the same.2. Before us, the assessee submitted that following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. T. R. Estate v. CIT : [1986]157ITR285(AP) as also the decision of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Narbharam Popatbhai & Sons : [1987]166ITR534(MP) , and the Punjab & Haryana H...
J.V. Krishnamachary Vs. P.V. Ramamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ170
Bellie, J.1. This is defendant tenant's second appeal. The suit is for eviction of him from the suit premises which he is occupying as a tenant. The plaintiffs are the trustees of Sri Sundararaja Peru-mal Devasthanam, to which the suit property belongs. The suit was contested on various grounds. The suit was decreed by the trial Court (District Munsif Court, Madurai Town), and the appeal filed by the defendant-tenant was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. In this second appeal the only question raised is that the notice of termination of tenancy issued by the plaintiffs has been waived by reason of acceptance of rent by the plaintiff's tendered by the defendant-tenant after the expiry of the notice. It is not in dispute that a notice of termination has been given i.e., Ex.A.1 dated 28-1-1987 and it is a valid notice of termination. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the expiry of the notice the defendant-tenant sent rents by money orders and that has been received...
V. Doraiswami Pillai (Died) and Another Vs. the Government of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Mad321
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. The legal representative of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8086 of 1982 is the appellants, and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein.2. The Writ Petition was filed to quash the notice issued on 7-6-1982 under Ss. 9(3) and 10 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands situated in R.S. Nos.20/2, 20/3, 20/4 and 20/5 of an extent of 4.05 acres in Koilpattu Village. It is claimed that at no point of time prior to the impugned notice, there was any notice served on the owner of the land or any intimation given in any other manner by public announcement, etc. in the village. On 29-6-1982 the writ petitioner appeared before the third respondent and submitted that the lands should not (be?) acquired, and in spite of it, in or about first week of Aug., 1982, a notice under S. 12(2) was served determining the compensation at Rs. 13,972.50. It was learnt that the acquisition was for providing house sites for Adi Dravidas. By invoking urgency provisions unde...
G. Pushpalatha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2359
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a habeas corpus to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Govindan alias Choolai Govindan, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The first respondent passed the impugned order of detention in exercise of the power conferred by the sub-section (1) of S. 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. The facts leading to the impugned order have been elaborately set out in the order of detention and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat the same here. Though the order of detention has been challenged on various grounds, Mr. T. K. Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to only one point, namely, that the representation made by the detenu before the Advisory Board on 20-3-1989 was not placed before the Government before passing the order of confirmation on 10-4-1989. According to the lea...
M. Murugan Vs. Ranjini Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC233
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The prosecution has been initiated against him and two others, on a private complaint preferred by the respondents for offences under Section 120B read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code, and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The second accused in the case, Vimala, was the erstwhile wife of the third accused, C.G. Rangabashyam.2. On 19-4-1979, the respondent filed a complaint against these three accused and one another for offence under Section 120B read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code, and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 1417 of 1979, on the file of the same Magistrate. The allegation in the complaint was, that the petitioner had married the second accused (Vimala) on 26-3-1978 at Tirumalai, during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent. T...
S. Natarajan Vs. Shelly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC217
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 10375 of 1989 on the file of the XVT1 Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. Pas prosecution has been initiated by the respondent by filing a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 493, 494, 495 and 496 I.P.C. The respondent has filed the complaint as an aggrieved person, coining within the fold of Section 198 Cr. P.C.2. The private complaint was filed before the Court below on 18-7-1989 on which date, the sworn statement of the respondent was recorded. For examination of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the proceedings were adjourned, on 18-7-1989 to 22-7.1989. However, it is seen from the record's that the father of the respondent, R. Subraimniam, was examined by the Court below on 29-7-1989 and the matter was posted for orders on 4-8-1989. On 4-8-1989 the trial Magistrate took the complaint on file for offences under Sections 493, 494, 495 and 496 I.P.C. and directed issue of...
K. Venkataraman Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ1
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The appellant originally got inducted into the services of the Judicial Department and became a permanent Chief Clerk, Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Madras, when he was drafted into the Civil Supplies Department; and on 19.9.1979 while he was working as Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Nungamgbakkam Zone, he was reverted to the Judicial Department. The appellant put that order in issue in W.P. No. 4169 of 1979. Two contentions were advanced by the appellant before the learned single Judge, who heard and disposed of the writ petition. The learned single Judge did not accept either of the contentions and dismissed the writ petition and this has obliged the appellant to prefer the present writ appeal.2. The very same two contentions are being pressed forth before us. The first contention is that the services of the appellant were regularised in the Civil Supplies Department and hence he cannot be reverted to the Judicial Department. That the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »