Chennai Court February 1990 Judgments
S. Ponnuswamy Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad88
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:--'..... The petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature by calling for the records on the files of the respondent especially the order bearing No. 85/518/88-1 dated 10-2-1989 and quash the same and direct the respondent to pay thefreedom fighter pension from the day the petitioner applied for the same within a reasonable period and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and render justice'.2. Petitioner was residing in Penang in Malaysia. During 1937, he joined the Indian National Army as Sepoy recruited by Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and he belonged to 2/9th Guerilla Regiment wilh Regd. No. 63595. He suffered imprisonment from 15-8-1946 up to the end of February, 1947. Along wilh him one Ponnusamy was also imprisoned and he is a recipient of State Pension. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalaisami Asari Vs. Bakthavatsalam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1081
ORDER1. This revision by P.W. 9, is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.A. No. 52 of 1985 filed under Sec. 454 Cr.P.C. reversing the order passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Palani and directing the return of M.Os. 1 and 2 to first respondent herein. 2. M.Os. 1 and 2 are two items of gold jewellery weighing 62 grams, which were involved in C.C. No. 542/82 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Palani. The case had been instituted on a charge sheet filed by the police, the second respondent herein, on a complaint given by the first respondent for an offence under section 379 I.P.C., During the investigation, the M.Os. had been recovered by the police from the petitioner who was examined as P.W. 9 during trial. The accused in the case had been acquitted on 19-12-1984 and by order dated 31-12-1984 the learned Magistrate had directed return of M.Os. 1 and 2 to the petitioner herein. The first respondent filed C.A. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Murali Krishnan Vs. A. Nagarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad108
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The controversy in this writ appeal relates to the leasing of a restaurant situated in the New Bus Stand at Omalur belonging to the third respondent Panchayat. Earlier the appellant was the lessee of the restaurant. On the period of lease in his favour expiring, auction was proposed and it was held thrice, namely on 20-2-1989, 9-3-1989 and 17-3-1989. Since none of the auctions fructified tenders were called for and the highest tender of the first respondent was accepted. The first respondent was granted the lease. However, the appellant preferred an appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent cancel-led the lease in favour of the first respondent on a reasoning that as per G.O.Ms. No. 1396, Rural Development and Local Administration dated 23-7-1970 the third respondent was bound to make an offer to the existing lessee, namely, the appellant in the event of a decision to revise the lease amount. This provoked the first respondent to approach this...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Goel Vs. Ahmed Thayub and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ49
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor against the order dated 27-11-1989 allowing E.P. No. 8 of 1986 in O.S. No. 296 of 1982 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. The decree is for past arrears of rent and future rent from 1-7-1982 till the date of possession at the ate of Rs. 1,240 per month. The possession has not been yet, since the decree is still the subject matter of Second Appeal No. 162 of 1986 on the file of this Court, which was filed by the petitioner after his failure in both the courts below, and since the petitioner had obtained stay regarding possession decree alone in the said Second Appeal. The E.P. is for executing the decree for future rents from 1-7-1982 the date of the suit till 31-12-1985, i.e., just prior to the filing of the execution petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner no doubt originally began her submission on the basis of the new amendment made to the Wakf Act 1954, by t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. J. StalIn Devi Vs. Gift-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD150(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. C. A. Ramanujam (accountant Member) - In this appeal the appellant pleads that gifts made to his son Selvarajan on account of his marriage on 18-11-1983 should be exempted under section 5(1) (ii) of the Gift-tax Act, Exemption was denied by the Gift-tax Officer on the ground that Selvarajan was not dependent upon the mother for support and maintenance.2. Shri T. R. Rajaraman pleads that Gift-tax Act is a fiscal statute and any ambiguity in interpretation should be resolved in favour of the assessee. He also submitted that any provision for exemption or relief should be construed in favour of the appellant. It is his case that a son is dependent upon the parent for his daily requirement like food, etc., whatever be his age and financial position. Shri Udayakumar, Departmental Representative on the other hand points out that Selvarajan is separately assessed to income-tax and himself gave gift of Rs. 50,000 to his would-be wife before his marriage. He contended that he c...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Thiru R.M. Somasundaram and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad305
ORDER1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing the main writ petition itself has been taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is :--'..... to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ forbearing the 2nd respondent from convening the timing conference and passing orders thereon in favour of the first respondent's stage carriage TNT 1793 (since replaced by TDR 3993) plying on the route Madurai -- Kallupatti pursuant to the hearing notice made in R. No. 79074/A3/85 signed on 6-1-1990.....'2. The petitioner, a State owned Corporation objects to the convening of timing conference in favour of the first respondent's carriage TNT 1793 plying on the route Madurai to Kallupatti pursuant to the hearing notice made in R. No. 79074/A43/85 signed on 6-1-1990.3. It is stated in the affidavit that the route of the first respondent overlaps on the approved scheme route Madurai to Papa-nasam published under S. 68D of the Tamil Nadu ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Baskar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ535
Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This referred trial comes before us on a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The accused Basker was tried for offences u/S. 307 on three counts and u/S. 302 Indian Penal Code on three counts. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused u/S. 302 Penal Code on three counts and sentenced him to be hanged by his neck till his death. The accused was further convicted u/S. 307 Penal Code on three counts and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment on three counts. The sentence of seven years directed to merge with the sentence of death. 2. The accused does not prefer any appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :- P.W. 1 Bhagalavan is residing in Aduthurai Tarangambadi Salai along with his wife the deceased Nagu an his mother deceased Sampurnathammal, Another deceased Chandra, the sister of P.W. 1 was residing with her husband Krishnamoorthy in the same place at a distance of a furlong from the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 injure...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvaleeswarar Temple, Represented by Sole Trustee N. Kasiviswanatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ142
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The lands of the appellant were the subject matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Certain dates and factual details have got to be set down. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was dated 8.5.1975. It was published in the Gazette on 11.6.1975. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7.6.1978. According to the appellant, it was in the dark with reference to the details of the acquisition proceedings until a notice regarding award enquiry on 30.3.1983 was received by it. The appellant filed W.P. No. 2816 of 1983 challenging the acquisition proceedings from the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge, who heard the Writ petition, took note of the infirmity with reference to the conduct of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in that the remarks obtained from the requisitioning body, namely, the Housing Board were not at all forwarded to the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!P. Alagammal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ145
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single Judge, who disposed of three Writ Petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 2732, 2771 and 2816 of 1983. Today we have disposed of W.A. No. 987 of 1984, directed against W.P. No. 2816 of 1983. (See : (1990)1MLJ142 .) Here W.A. No. 1065 of 1984 is directed against W.P. No. 2732 of 1983 and W.A. No. 1066 of 1984 is directed against W.P. No. 2771 of 1983. The acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act, covered the lands of all the parties. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions preferred by the land owners to the extent of quashing the acquisition proceedings, leaving the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act intact. The facts of the present cases are similar to the facts of the case dealt with by us in W.A. No. 987 of 1984. The same ratio, as applied by us, for allowing W.A. No. 987 of 1984, applies to the facts of the present cas...
Tag this Judgment!Official Assignee Vs. the President, the Ideal Homes Co-op. Building S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ8
Janarthanam, J.1. This is an application taken out by the Official Assignee, under Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') for a direction to the President, The Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Bangalore, the respondent herein to execute a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the property, viz., Plot No. 530, Ideal Homes Project Township, Kenchanahalli, Bangalore said to have been allotted, pursuant the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 14.7.1977 to one V. Parthasarathy, one of the partners of Vummidiar Bankers, which was subsequently adjudged as insolvent on 13.4.1983 on a creditor petition in I.P. No. 9 of 1983.2. The two facets of opposition emerging from the respondent revolving on law and facts consist of the following:(1) the interest stated to have been acquired by the insolvent in respect of the said plot of land prusuant to the lease cum sale agreeement entered into by him with the Society can, by no stretch of imag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »