Chennai Court November 1990 Judgments
Joseph Felix Ferninand Navier Vs. Soucila Engine Juliette Navier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ99
ORDERS.T. Ramalingam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is against the order dated 19.11.1987 made in I.A. No. 537 of 1984, a petition filed under Section 80 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, in G.O.P. No. 109 of 1970 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.2. Certain basic facts, which are not in dispute, may first be stated. The appellant Joseph Felix Ferdi and Navier has a brother by name Lucian Marolle Navier (hereinafter referred to as Lucian). Both of them are Ex. servicemen of the French Army. Lucian was engaged in the war of Indo-China. A splinter hand bomb injured his head. He was detained as a prisoner of war for several months in Indo-China. He was not mentally all right. He was released by Viet Minh Authorities of Hanoi, and was sent to the Military Mental Hospital, Laveran, Marseilles. The medical experts at the Marseilles hospital granted leave of long duration for illness with liability to be renewed every six months. They also directed him to g...
Tag this Judgment!Pathuma Beevi (Died) and anr. Vs. Pathamuthu Joharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)322MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in the court of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal in E.A. No. 155 of 1980 in E.P. No. 51 of 1980 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1979.2. The 1st respondent herein obtained an order of eviction against the 2nd respondent in H.R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1979. When the order was sought to be executed, the appellant herein obstructed. The 1st respondent filed E.A. No. 155 of 1980 for removal of obstruction under O.21, Rules 97 and 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, granted the prayer and directed delivery of possession. The appellant herein filed AS. No. 3of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Karaikal. While dismissing the appeal on merits, the Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable. The present second appeal is against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant died and her legal representatives were brought on record as...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Yusuf Vs. O.P. Kannan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)327MLJ1
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of requiring the petition premises by way of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petition premises is situate at No. 8. C.N. Krishnasamy Road, Chepauk, Madras-5. It is a non-residential building. The respondent herein is the tenant under the petitioner herein in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 125. The Rent Controller ordered eviction. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on appeal reversed the order of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted as under: The landlord is having an engineering workshop in the rear portion of the petition premises. The tenant is in occupation of the front portion of the said premises...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR318(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion, in respect of the assessment year 1964-65 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1964-65 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee has not concealed his income for the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. The assessee had not been assessed to income-tax till the assessment year 1963-64. With effect from January 1, 1964, the assessee became a partner of the firm, Messrs. Inden Bisellers, contributing a capital of Rs. 30,000. On January 5, 1965, the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mary Sheila Vs. Dr. Vincent Thamburaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad180; II(1992)DMC497
ORDER1. The plaintiff/wife preferred a petition under S. 18 read with Section 19(1)of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant solemnised on 3-4-1986 is null and void on the ground that the husband/defendant was impotent on the date of marriage and also at the time of institution of the suit.2. The defendant, though received summons from the principal Family Court at Madras, chose to remain ex parte and consequently, the Court was left with no other option but to decide the matter in his absence. The defendant remained ex parte before this Court also.3. In the plaint, in support of her case, the wife was stated that the marriage between her and the defendant was solemnised as per Christian rites at St. Thomas Basilica at Madras on 3-4-1986. For a long period, the defendant made no attempt to consummate the marriage. They went to Ooty on 5-4-1986 to enjoy their honey-moon and stayed there till 11-4-1986. Even at that time,...
Tag this Judgment!O.N. Natarajan and anr. Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ506
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. No.598 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif of Turaiyur are the appellants in S.A. No.2146 of 1986. The plantiff in O.S. No. 1829 of 1980 on the file of the same court is the appellant in S.A. No. 2147 of 1986. The defendant in both the suits is the respondent in these second appeals. The second plaintiff in O.S. No. 598 of 1981 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1829 of 1980 is the wife of the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 598 of 1981. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit, O.S. 598/87.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 598 of 1981 for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to remove the fence put up by the defendant on the southern boundary of the suit properties, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs, their men and servants having access from the suit properties/to the roa...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Meera Nireshwalia Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2395
ORDER1. The Petitioner Mrs. Meera Nireshwalia, who lived with her husband S. Nireshwalia (7th Respondent) in a house in Anna Nagar allotted under the Anna Nagar Housing Board L.I.G. Scheme, is the petitioner. A mother of two daughters already married, and a son settled in business, she, however, had to suffer first on account, as alleged, of non-payment of the instalments to the Housing Board by her husband, who, it is alleged, first had agreed to transfer the allotment of the house in her name, but later obtained the sale deed from the Housing Board in his name without her knowledge. She was threatened and harassed, by her husband, she has alleged, who threatened to sell the property, the ideas which she always opposed on the ground that she had made the major contribution towards the purchase of the house by pledging her jewellery and raising money. She filed O.S. No. 7325 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Madras, for injunction restraining the seventh respondent (husband) and his...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Rao Vs. Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR616(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The Inspector of Police, B-2, Police Station, Madras, arrested one Sadhashiv Rao on April 14, 1988, when he was found in possession of Rs. 3,25,506 under section 101 read with s ection 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and registered a case in Crime No. 262 of 1988 (AFIR No. 548 of 1988) and produced him before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, on April 15, 1988. He also handed over the amount seized to the court and the siad amount was credited to the criminal court deposit in that crime number. On his arrest, the said Sadhashiv Rao is stated to have given a statement to the polioce that the amount had been handed over to him by one Janardhan Sait of Sowcarpet, Madras, and he was later released on bail on April 18, 1988. 2. On April 25, 1988, the petitioner filed Criminal M.P. No. 248 of 1988 in the said Crime Number in AFIR No. 548 of 1988 praying for the return of the amounts seized from Sadhashiv Rao and deposited into court. 3. The Assistant Director ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jayanthi Films (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR802(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the Income-tax Officer's disallowance of Rs. 40,910 under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, out of the commission payment of Rs. 13,310 for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manjushree Plantation Ltd., Nilgiris (I. T. A. Nos. 1978 to 1981/MDS/1972-73), dealing with an identical question. That formed the subject-matter of a reference before this court in the decision in CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 150 according to which, in order to term a payment a 'perquisite', it had to be a payment other than a cash payment, in pursuance of a contr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sannanna Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Mad)42; [1991]190ITR18(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, one S. Rajannan was a partner in the assessee-firm, Messrs. Sannanna Chetty and Sons, Elempillai. His share income for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 was Rs. 94,206 and Rs. 50,011, respectively. Since the tax payable by S. Rajannan, for the aforesaid assessment years was outstanding, the Income-tax Officer felt that the firm, Messrs. Sannanna Chetty and Sons, should have retained 30% of the share income payable to the partner, S. Rajannan, as per section 182(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and issued a notice to the firm on June 30, 1975, to pay the amount that should have been retained under section 182(4) of the Act against the income-tax payable by the partner, S. Rajannan, for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. In response to the notice so issued, the firm, Messrs. Sannanna Chetty and Sons, took up the stand that it had not been estab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »