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.
R.M. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. M. Abdul Rahim Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)546MLJ1
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,160 alleged to be due on a mortgage deed dated 7.11.1963 executed by the first defendant (first respondent herein), has been dismissed on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The subsequent mortgagee has been impleaded as the second defendant-second respondent herein. Second respondent has remained exparte and the appeal is being contested by the first defendant-first respondent.2. As said above, the mortgage is dated 7.11.1963. The period for redemption fixed therein is one year i.e., till 7.11.1964. The suit has been filed on 27.11.1978. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff bona fide believed that the first defendant/debtor was entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Ordinances and Acts and therefore 3 years, 1 months and 15 days shall be excluded while computing the period of 12years and if thus computed the suit is in time.3. It was contended by the first defendant that t...
Director of School Education, Madras and Others Vs. V. Gnanaraj and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Mad124; (1991)IIMLJ45
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20-4-1990 in W.P. No. 6796 of 1988 and the order of clarification, dated 25th June, 1990 passed in W.M. P. No. 10748 of 1990 in that writ petition. We will presently refer to the import and impact of the orders of the learned single Judge. Before that, we must refer to the array of parties so that we could deal with the controversy in this writ appeal conveniently and appropriately. The first respondent in the writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ appeal are respondents 1 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner was in the services of the first respondent as a Physical Director. The qualification prescribed for the said post was a pass in Master of Physical Education, the abbreviati...
D. Ponnusamy Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)366MLJ1
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Mangalur Primary Co-operative Bank and one of the candidates for the election to the posts of President and Vice-President, which was due to be held on 24.10.1990. There are 11 directors in the Board, of which three have been nominated. The 3rd respondent, it alleged who has been elected to the Board of Directors, is an illiterate person, not knowing Tamil or English to write or to read. She is a housewife and cannot read or write either Tamil or English and therefore she is not eligible to hold the post of a Director in the Bank. Inspite of this, the 3rd respondent being a Director has been permitted to vote in the election for the posts of President and Vice-President. The society would be put to great hardship and loss, if the 3rd respondent is allowed to vote as a Director, in the election to be held for electing President and Vice-President, when the 3rd respondent is disqualified to hold the post of a Director by virtue ...
The Director of School Education and ors. Vs. V. Gnanaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ45
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.4.1990, in W.P. No. 6796 of 1988 and the order of clarification, dated 25.6.1990, passed in W.M.P. No. 10748 of 1990 in that writ petition. We will presently refer to the import and impact of the orders of the learned single Judge. Before that, we must refer to the array of parties so that we could deal with the controversy in this writ appeal conveniently and appropriately. The first respondent in the writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ appeal are respondents 1 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner was in the. services of the first respondent as a Physical Director. The qualification prescribed for the said post was a pass in Master of Physical Education, the abbreviation being ...
P. Dwaraknath Reddy Vs. New India Maritime Agencies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ118
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The appellant in these two writ appeals was the third-respondent in W.P. Nos. 13030 and 13031 of 1990. In those writ petitions, the first respondent herein was the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein were respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petitions. We propose to refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. The petitioner and the third-respondent are owners of properties adjoining one another. The third-respondent had put up constructions upto third floor in his property. He applied to the second respondent for additional construction of fourth and fifth floors, and his request was negatived by the second respondent on 20.11.1987. The third-respondent on 2.12.1987 appealed to the first respondent and he wanted condonation of the shortfalls and a copy of his appeal petition is annexed to this judgment of ours as Annexure 'A'. On 9.6.1988 the first respondent turned down the appeal of the petitioner, declining to condone the shortfalls. The cop...
Sundarambal and ors. Vs. Deivanaayagam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ199
Srinivasan, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 192 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, are the appellants in both the appeals. They filed the suit for declaration of the 1st plaintiffs title to A schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same besides partition and separate possession of 4/6th share in B schedule properties. The trial Court granted a decree declaring the first plaintiffs title to the A schedule properties and holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 4/18th share in B schedule properties except in item No. 6 and directing a division thereof. There was an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. No. 142 of 1979 and another appeal by defendants 3, 4 and 6 in A.S. No. 143 of 1979. The Subordinate Judge allowed AS. No. 142 of 1979 in part and held that the fist plaintiff was entitled only to 1/3rd share in the A schedule property and recovery of possession thereof. He dismissed the said appeal in other r...
K. Jamal Maideen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)529MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner obtained a mining lease for quarrying quartz and felspar in Survey No. 42/14, Desavilakku Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District over an extent of 1 acre for a period of three years. It may be stated that the petitioner asked for a lease for a period of 20 years but actually the grant was for only three years. A lease deed was executed on 15.12.1983. On 12.12.1985, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the lease. This application not having been disposed of on or before 11.6.1986, the application is deemed to be rejected. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the Central Government. This revision having been made on 25.6.1986 and not having been disposed of, the petitioner sent a reminder on 10.10.1986 and a telegram on 9.12.1986. Since the period of lease was expiring, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13523 of 1986 for the issue of a writ at mandamus to direct the respondent...
Adhmarani Nachiyar and anr. Vs. Kumaragurubaramanandham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)394MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal, They are challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. The facts which are necessary are shortly these: The suit property originally belonged to one Muthuvel Nachiyar, who died in 1938. She had a son Chandrasekara Pandiyan and two daughters Mangaleswari Nachiyar and Sankareswari Nachiyar. As the property was anwadheyaka stridhana, it devolved on the two daughters Mangaleswari Nachiyar and Sankareswari Nachiyar and the son did not take any share therein. Mangaleswari Nachiyar died on 11.4.1952 leaving her son the first defendant and daughter, the first plaintiff. Mangaleswari Nachiyar's husband Sami Pandian had married Sankareswari Nachiyar also. That is, of course, not very material in this case. Sankareswari Nachiyar, under Ex. A-4, dated 5.2.1966, entered into a partition with the first plaintiff, who was then a minor, represented by her guardian Rajalakshmi. The guardian was the sister of Sami Pandia...
G. Packia Raj Vs. P. Subbammal Alias Susila Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad319; (1991)IMLJ271
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. The judgment dated 9-3-1988 in O.S. No. 79 of 1987 on the flic of the District Judge, Kanyakumari dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff/husband with the 1st defendant/ wife under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to an 'the Act') on the ground that the 1st defendant has been guilty of adultery is placed before us for confirmation under S. 17 of the Act.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, a Christian, married in 1975 the 1st defendant who was a Hindu then, according to 'seerthirutha' form of marriage and also brought forth a child. The further case is that the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with other men during the time when the plaintiff used to go for his daily work, that on 16-5-1987 when the plaintiff returned home from the place of work unusually earlier, he found the 1st defendant 'keeping bed' with the 2nd defendant, that he reprimanded her for her immoral act, that she then left the house and th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nalli Silk Emporium and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR79(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions of law, common to both the cases, have been referred to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in making a single assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 for the period April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, in the assessee's case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the clauses of the partnership deed dated April 5, 1971, and the conduct of the partners, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a dissolution of partnership on the death of one of the partners, Shri Loganathan, on August 4, 1973 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »