Chennai Court November 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.
The Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Public Health and ors. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)24MLJ1
ORDERBellie, J.1. This is a review petition. A Judgment dated 23.2.1990 in Second Appeal No. 839 of 1988 is sought to be reviewed. The Review Petitioner are the defendant is the suit.2. The plaintiff who was a Government employee filed the suit for correction of his date of birth entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Service Register etc. alleging that whereas his correct date of birth is 1.8.1932 it has been wrongly entered in the said documents to as 1.7.1930. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in the appeal it was decreed by the first appellate Court. As against that the second appeal was filed and the second appeal was dismissed.3. In the second appeal it was contended by the appellants - defendants that the plaintiff has no right to file the suit for correction of his date of birth as prayed for him since he has failed to file an application for correction of his date of birth before the authorities as per Rule 49(c) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pondicherry Co-operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)90CTR(Mad)61; [1991]188ITR671(Mad); [1991]56TAXMAN92(Mad)
RATNAM J.-At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') the following common questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1972-73 to 1974-75.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income earned by the assessee on advances made by it to its members for constructing houses would be exempt under section 80-P of the Income-tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be held that the assessee co-operative society was carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, although it was functioning as a co-operative housing society?'The assessee is a co-operative housing society. having been registered some time in 1957 under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and later under the provisions of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The objects o...
Natarajan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2329
ORDER1. One M. Mahalingam is a native of Kumbakonam. He claims to be the foster son of one (Tmt) Hemavathi, who died on 11-12-1963, leaving behind her immovable and movable properties. She was stated to have left a registered trust deed dated 31-8-1962 in respect of the management of her immovable properties. She was also stated to have executed a will dated 6-10-1963 in respect of her movable properties. The said foster son is the sole legatee the abovesaid will.2. On 2-8-1982 the said Mahalingam gave a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kumbakonam against one Natarajan and two others, which was in turn, forwarded to the Kumbakonam Police Station. South under S. 156(3), Crl.P.C. for further action. On receipt of the complaint, which was registered in Crime No. 283/82, investigation was taken up and after completing the formalities of the investigation, a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. had been laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam for ...
R.Y. Narayanan Vs. Bank of Madurai Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ82
Bellie, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. The suit for a sum of Rs. 11,333.82 has been decreed against the two defendants.2. First defendant Lakshmanan, on 11.12.1974, borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff bank executing a promissory note Ex. A-4 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% per annum over the Reserve Bank of India rate. This amount was borrowed by the first defendant for the purpose of purchasing a Bajaj tempo vehicle. Out of the said sum of Rs. 10,000 borrowed, as a matter of arrangement, the first defendant madea Fixed Deposit of Rs. 4,000 in the same bank. The balance of Rs. 6,000 was utilised for the purchase of the vehicle. A deed was executed by the first defendant hypothecating the vehicle as a security for the payment of the said loan amount, and the said Fixed Deposit also was intended to be a security. The second defendant also executed a guarantee letter in favour of the plaintiff for repayment of the loan amount. As per the hypothecation d...
Ramuru Gounder and anr. Vs. Andalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ241a
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition filed by defendants 2 and 3 is against the dismissal order dated 1.8.1990 in I.A No. 204 of 1989 in A.S. No. 183 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri. The said A.S. No. 183 of 1989 is the appeal against O.S. No. 1135 of 1979. The said I.A. No. 204 of 1989 is for appointment of a commissioner for noting down the physical features and measuring the suit property. The said I.A was dismissed on the ground inter alia that earlier, even in the suit, a similar application viz., I.A. No. 338 of 1987 was filed by the petitioners for appointment of a Commissioner and that it was dismissed on 25.10.1988. The petitioners did not choose to file any C.R.P. Against the said order. No doubt, even though no C.R.P. was filed, there is no bar for the petitioners to canvass the correctness of the said dismissal order in the above said appeal in view of Section 105(1), C.P.C. Vide also Narayanan v. Krishnan A.I.R 1985 Mad. 3.2. But what is cont...
Vijayalakshmi Vs. the Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station, Karur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad243; II(1991)DMC319
ORDERBellie, J.1. The wife has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus directing her husband-second respondent to hand over custody of her children to her. The first respondent-Inspector of Police has been Impleaded since according to the petitioner-wife she has preferred a complaint against her husband to the first respondent.2. The petitioner and the second-respondent were married in the year 1982. They have two children aged about 6 years and 5 years. The case of the petitioner-wife in her affidavit filed in support of the petition is that on account of the cruel behaviour of the husband towards her she came to her parents' house at Karur in 1985. She filed a petition under S. 125. Cr. P.C. for maintenance for herself and her two children and an order was passed directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500. - to the petitioner and a sum of Us. 150, - for each of the two children every month. In the meanwhile the husband got himself convert...
Vanaja Vs. Gopu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC347; (1991)IMLJ290
Ratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the wife, is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by her in I.A. No. 80 of 1987 in H.M.O.P. No. 171 of 1986, underSection 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying that the respondent should be directed to pay the petitioner maintenance in a. sum of Rs. 200/- every month and Rs. 750/- to meet the expenses of that proceeding.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-On 17.9.1977, the respondent herein married the petitioner at Salem and the petitioner gave birth to a daughter. The petitioner and the respondent lived together as wife and husband till 22.8.1984. Misunderstandings appear to have arisen between the parties, which ultimately led to the petitioner being obliged to leave for her parents' house. On 15.7.1985, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent, setting out the circumstances, under which she was obliged to leave th...
Roslyn Vinolia Vs. A. Peter Kanakaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)325MLJ1
Venkataswami Bellie, J.1. The learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli has passed an order of dissolution of marriage in I.D.O.P. No. 10 of 1989 filed by the wife against her husband under Sees. 18 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for a declaration of her marriage with the first respondent as null and void or in the alternative for judicial separation. The matter is now posted before us for confirmation of that order under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act.2. The case of the petitioner-wife is that the petitioner was married to the first respondent on 13.2.1984. Ever since the marriage the petitioner was ill-treated by the first respondent for extracting dowry money. She was beaten and abused with filthy language. She was deprived, of her gold jewels weighing about ten sovereigns. Unable to bear the harassment she attempted to commit suicide on 17.5.1984. In this connection a complaint was made to the police on 22.6.1984 but no action was taken. Thereafter there was no conhabi...
Manoj Vanaja Vs. Gopu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)290MLJ1
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition, at the instance of the wife, is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by her in I.A. No. 80 of 1987 in H.M.O.P. No. 171 of 1986, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying that the respondent should be directed to pay the petitioner maintenance in a sum of Rs. 200 every month and Rs. 750 to meet the expenses of that proceeding.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the civil revision petition, are as follows: On 17.9.1977, the respondent herein married the petitioner at Salem and the petitioner gave birth to a daughter. The petitioner and the respondent lived together as wife and husband till 22.8.1984. Misunderstandings appear to have arisen between the parties, which ultimately led to the petitioner being obliged to leave for her parents' house. On 15.7.1985, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent, setting out the circumstances, under which she was obliged to leave t...
Sukra Shoe Fabric Vs. United Commercial Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas179(Mad); (1991)IMLJ27
Kanakara, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of exporters of leather garments and footwear. The petitioner applied to the respondent-bank for the grant of term loan facility, packing credit facility and foreign bills discount facility and the respondent-bank accepted the request on June 21, 1988. The petitioner set up the factory in a backward area with a view to get certain concessions and obtained a lease of land measuring 1.5 acres at Dindigul. The respondent-bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 54 lakhs. The petitioner had hypothecated the machinery to and in favour of the respondent-bank. An additional term loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was also sanctioned by the respondent-bank. The entire amount of Rs. 58 lakhs was to be paid by the petitioner in ten half-yearly instalments in accordance with the hypothecation agreement. 2. According to the petitioner, after the installation of the machinery, the petitioner commenced its business and exported leather goods to foreign countries and negotiated the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »