Chennai Court October 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.
Manian Transports and Others Vs. S. Krishna Moorthy, Income-tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR1(Mad)
Arunachalam J.1. The petitioners, the respondent as well as the offences alleged against the petitioners, are the same. The only difference is the assessment year during which the offences are stated to have been committed. The questions urged are common and hence these petitions are disposed of together. 2. Criminal M. P. No. 7309 of 1985 invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C. C. No. 140 of 1985, pending on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, and quash the proceedings therein, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court. The private complaint instituted by the respondent who is the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(1), Thanjavur, alleges commission of offences by the petitioners punishable under sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1973-...
N. Rangarajan Vs. Lakshmi Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)396MLJ1
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2374 of 1979 on the file of the 17th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit are the respondents 1 to 5 in this Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiffs suit is for declaration that the garage in A Schedule property is the common property of the plaintiff and his co-owners of other flats and for directing the second defendant to deliver possession of the garage to the plaintiff arid other co-owners and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from in any way dealing with the garage contrary to the covenants in the sale deeds and against the second defendant from in anyway obstructing the plaintiff from using the garage with his undivided 1/4th share in the land out of 2 grounds and 1,650 sq.ft. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The house a...
Mohan Vs. Varalakshmi Ammal Alias Annapoorani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ552
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tindivanam, in E.A. No. 1042 of 1985 in O.S. No.652 of 1969 dismissing that application filed by the petitioner Under Section 47, C.P.C. praying that the decree in O.S. No.652 of 1969, District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam, should be held to be unenforceable and that the execution proceedings therein at the instance of the respondent are invalid. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this civil revision petition are as follows: The respondent herein is the wife of one Subramania Chettiar. She instituted O.S. No.652 of 1969, District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam, against her husband Subramania Cheuiar praying for recovery of Rs. 1,650 towards past maintenance and future maintenance at Rs.100 per mensum. With a charge on the house property hearing door No.18, Perumal Koil Street, Tindivanam. On 8-9-1969, the respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 652 of 1969 as prayed for by her ...
Ramamurthy and ors. Vs. V. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ494
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1.The petitioners applied for eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act. The Revenue Court passed an order on 9.4.1987 directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2647.55 being the arrears of rent on or before 9.6.1967. The respondent did not make the deposit in time. The petitioners filed I.A.372 of 1987 for passing an order of eviction as the respondent failed to comply with the direction given by the Revenue Court by its earlier order. The application was filed in September, 1987. The respondent filed a counter affidavit in October 1988 in which he stated that he had deposited the money as per the orders of the Revenue Court on 4-8-1987 under Challan No.843. He produced a xerox copy of the Challan along with the counter affidavit.2. The Revenue Court has taken the view that the deposit having been made even before the filing of I.A. 372 of 1987 and there being no explanation on the part of the petition...
Leelavathi Natesan Vs. Khaja Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC83
Ratnam, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirunelveli, in MACOP. No. 102 of 1982, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant praying that compensation in a sum of Rs. 43,218/- should be awarded to her in respect of an accident that took place on 2.1.1982 involving the taxi owned by her bearing registration No. TNT 6636 insured with the fourth respondent and a mini-bus bearing registration No. APQ 6858 belonging to the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent.2. There is no dispute now that the mini-bus APQ 6858 was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and that was responsible for the accident and had also caused extensive damage to the taxi of the appellant TNT 6636, almost reducing it to a total wreck. The appellant in M.A.C.O.P. No. 102 of 1982 prayed that compensation should be awarded to her under the following heads: (1) Loss of earning ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›