Chennai Court December 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.
K.J. Bastian Vs. A. Nazarali and Sons, Registered Partnership Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ223
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. An interesting question of law arises for consideration in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant in rent control proceedings.2. The question is whether the Rent Controller is right in ordering payment out of the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'-) after the disposal of the R.C.O.P. and the appeal filed against that order. A subsidiary question that also arises for consideration is whether the Rent Controller, in any event, was right in ordering payment out of the entire amount deposited when a portion of it was not recoverable by the landlord even on the date of deposit by reason of bar of limitation.3. Let us now look into the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition.4. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed an application for fixation of fair rent under S...
South Arcot Market Committee, by Its Secretary and anr. Vs. the South ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ202
ORDERRaju, J.1. These three writ appeals are dealt with together since common issues, both on facts and law, are involved for consideration. The above appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 25.3.1983 made inW.P. Nos. 3684 of 1977, 5006 and 5007 of 1978 which were disposed of along with a batch of similar cases.2. The respondent herein, which is a Co-operative Spinning Mills, started functioning from 15.8.1964 and commenced commercial production on 5.2.1966. The respondent has been engaged in the manufacture of fine count yarn used in Handloom Industry and effects supply of its product mainly to handloom weavers which is the primary object of the respondent functioning under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made there under. The only raw material required for the manufacture of fine count yarn is cotton and the respondent purchased the required cotton lint both from the local producers in the State as well...
Nana Pillai and anr. Vs. Naina Mohamed Beevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)419MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only ground urged in this revision is that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction in this matter. The landlord filed an application for eviction earlier in 1976 on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner herein disputed the title of the landlord. Denial of title was found to be bona fide and the landlord was directed to file a civil suit. The landlord filed a suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of mesne profits. That suit was decreed. Thereafter the present petition for eviction was filed by the landlord. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the only remedy of the landlord was to have asked for eviction in the civil suit itself. Learned Counsel places reliance on the second proviso to Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The Proviso reads as follows:Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims ri...
Ramadoss Thattu Vandaiyar Vs. Kamalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)472MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against order of the executing Court dismissing an application for execution filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner's father obtained a decree in O.S. No. 222 of 1962 for recovery of money against the respondent. He died on 15.2.1979. The petitioner filed the execution petition on the ground that under a will dated 23.9.1973 the petitioner's father bequeathed the entire decree in favour of the petitioner and he was entitled to execute the same. In the petition he also averred that apart from the will he was entitled to execute the decree as one of the sons of the deceased decree-holder.2. The genuineness of the will was contested by the respondent. The court below, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove the will. The question is one of fact and I do not find any infirmity or fallacy in the order of the court below. The finding has to be confirmed.3. The court b...
Gowri Corporation Represented by Its Managing Partner, V. Mahadevan Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ134
Bellie, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a Common Judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram in O.S. Nos. 40 of 1979, 41 of 1979,149 of 1980 and 150 of 1980. The first suit was filed by four plaintiffs against Dr. V. Gurumurthy for recovery of Rs. 9,000 as damages for use and occupation of tenanted property. O.S. No. 41 of 1979 was filed by two plaintiffs against Gowri Corporation represented by its Managing Partner, V. Mahadevan for a similar relief viz., for recovery of Rs. 18,000 as damages for use and occupation of the tenanted property. O.S. No. 149 of 1980 was filed by Dr. V. Gurumurthy, i.e., the defendant in O.S. No. 40 of 1979 against 'Savithri Ammal's Sama Veda Patasalai, by Trustee, R. Krishnaswami Dikshithar, and the four plaintiffs in O.S. No. 40 of 1979 as defendants 2 to 5 for declaration that the plaintiff Dr. V. Gurumurthy is a tenant only under the first defendant and not under the other defendants and they are not entitled to evict him from the premises,...
Tuttapullum Estates Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Mad)189; [1991]191ITR131(Mad)
1. The assessee is a registered firm. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74, it claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,96,402 towards gratuity liability should be deducted while computing the income. In the course of completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 30,328 on the ground that only the incremental liability can be allowed and disallowed the balance of Rs. 1,66,074. On appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he took the view that gratuity liability can be allowed only if the conditions prescribed in section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are fulfilled and that though a trust had been created and the assessee had taken a policy for group insurance with the Life Insurance Corporation, the provision was not made on an actuarial basis but on the basis of fifteen day's salary for each year of completed service and consequentl...
Canara Steel Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT27(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of Steel Ingots falling under Tariff Item No. 26 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The steel ingots were fully exempted from duty under the Government of India Notification 237/75-C.E., dated 9-12-1975. By a subsequent Notification No. 156/79, dated 9-4-1979, duty at the rate of Rs. 100/- per metric ton was imposed on steel ingots manufactured in mini plants like that of the petitioner-company. Consequently, the petitioner became liable to duty at Rs. 100/- per metric ton on and from 9-4-1979. It transpires that on 8-4-1979 the petitioner had a closing stock of 628.187 metric ton of steel ingots. Though the said quantity of steel ingots did not attract duty because Notification No. 156/79 came into effect from 9-4-1979, it is stated that as required by the Superintendent of Excise, the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 65,868.11 as duty for the stock remaining on 8-4-1979. The petitione...
Damodaran and ors. Vs. Paul and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)308MLJ1
Mishra, J.1. Two appeals, one on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, and another on behalf of Damodaran, Ramu, Pandian and Ganapathy, Inspectors of Police, who were impleaded as respondents in W.P.No.3014 of 1986, have been preferred against the order of Venkataswami, J., holding that the appointment of appellants in W.A.No.1623 of 1988 as Inspectors overlooking the claims of the writ petitioners, respondents cannot be sustained and accordingly, the proceedings of the fourth respondent fourth appellant in W.A.No.896 of 1989, dated 5.12.1985, is fit to be set aside.2. The respondents - writ petitioners, 13 in number, Paul Ponnusamy, Thangaraj, Parameswaran, Chelliah, Kochunni, Subbarayalu, Shanmugha Sadachalam, Kanniappan, Muruganandam, Karuppiah, Rajagopal and Radhakrishnan, in their petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India, claim that except Thanga...
A. Ghouse Khan Vs. the Rent Controller and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)487MLJ1
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This revision petition is preferred under Art.227of the Constitution of India, against an order of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore, in E.P. No. 494 of 1982 in E.A. No. 2427 of 1983, dated 30.4.1987.2. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was the fourth respondent in E.A. No. 2427 of 1983. The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are the following: 'The second respondent herein preferred R.CO.P. No. 400 of 1966 against one Sulaiman, Raman Nair and Aziz Khan for evicting them from the suit premises. An order of eviction against those three tenants were passed on 10.1.1967. Against that order of eviction, an appeal was filed in R.C.A.No. 32 of 1967 which was ultimately dismissed on 22.1.1969. Thereafter, the tenantspreferredC.R.P. No. 274ofl969on the file of this Court which was also ultimately dismissed on 27.4.1970. It appears that Azizkhan viz., the third tenant died on 20.9.1972. Without knowing the death of th...
J. Mohanlal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)256MLJ1
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners have come up before this Court challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 708, Transport Department, dated 5.7.1988, under which a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued, to acquire the piece of land for the purpose of construction of a bus, terminal by the respondent Pallavan Transport Corporation.2. Originally when the writ petition was taken up for hearing and arguments were heard for some time, it was thought by this Court that it would be better that the Pallavan Transport Corporation also should have been impleaded as party respondent and as such the Pallavan Transport Corporation, Madras is impleaded as a party - respondent as per the order in W.M.P. No. 14268 of 1990 dated 6.7.1990.3. During the course of arguments, it was found that it is necessary to challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act made on 7.7.1983 and as such the petitioners herein have raised additional ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »