Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. A. Mohammed Yousuf and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ149
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to acquire some land including an extent of 11 grounds and 1202 sq. feet forming part of R.S. No. 543/3 Nungambakkam Village, Nungambakkam taluk, Madras belonging to the respondent herein was challenged by the respondents in W.P. No. 8548 of 1983. The notification reads as follows:Acquisition of Lands. (G.O. Ms. No.847, Housing and Urban Development, 31st May 1983) No. II (2)/HOU/3364/83 Whereas it appears to the Government of Tamilnadu that the lands specified below and situated in Nungambakkam Village, Egmore Nungambakkam taluk, Madras District are needed for a public purpose, to wit, for development of the area by construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisitio...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Poompavai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ220; [1993]77CompCas171(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. We have dealt with these appeals, at the instance of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. questioning the extent of its liability, together, as they are directed against the awards on claim petitions filed by different persons in respect of the same accident. 2. In C.M.A. No. 842 of 1983, directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P. No. 96 of 1979, respondents Nos. 1 to 8 therein are the claimants and respondents Nos. 9 and 10 are respectively the driver and owner of the vehicle which was responsible for the accident. Likewise, in C.M.A. No. 843 of 1983 against the award in M.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1979, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 therein are the claimants while the owner and the driver of the vehicle are arrayed as respondents Nos. 6 and 5, respectively. The claimants are respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in C.M.A. No. 844 of 1983, preferred against the award in M.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1979 and the owner a...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mani Raj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR558(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, the following three questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties admitted by the accountable person in annexure 'F' of the estate duty account could not be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate in terms of section 10 read with section 27 of the Estate Duty Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the throwing of personal property by a coparcener into the common hotchpot of the family would not amount to a 'disposition' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act (3) Without prejudice to questions Nos. (1) and (2) above, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lineal descendants' share in the afor...
Tag this Judgment!G. Govindan Vs. C. David and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC603; 1990ACJ1039
K. Venkataswami, J. 1. The claimant in M.O.P. No. 26 of 1980, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chengalpattu, not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the claim are as under: The petitioner was working as a lineman attached to Madras Electricity System at Tambaram. He was getting a salary of Rs. 541.50. On 17.8.1979, he was proceeding on a bicycle from north to south along the G.S.T. Road, near Tambaram. At Kadapperi at about 7.45 a.m., the Ambassador car bearing registration No. MDL 2364, coming from the opposite direction, dashed against the claimant/appellant as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and the cycle was damaged. The appellant was taken to General Hospital at Tambaram and his right leg was amputated. He was in-patient in the hospital from 17.8.1979 to 2.10.1979. As a lineman, his job was to climb pillars and posts for correcting the defects in the line, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grand Bazar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR471(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, a direction is sought to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court. 2. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law holding that the Commissioner was not correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to add the entire cash credit as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's order deleting the Commissioner's direction to add the entire cash credit is supported by valid materials, reasonable and sustainable in law ?' 3. For the assessment year 1984-85 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the assessment regarding the addition in respect of unexplained cash credits determined by the Commissioner of Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudha Transports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR691(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, section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked to determine the capital gains that arose from the sale of the two buses by the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. We find that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course of his order, has stated that there is no evidence made available by the Revenue to establish that a higher value had been received by the assessee in respect of the sale of the buses. The conclusion has not been disturbed by the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, in view of the decision reported in CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. : [1986]159ITR71(SC) , applying the principle laid down in K. P. Varghese v. ITO : [1981]131ITR597(SC) to cases arising under section 52(1) of the Income-...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Abdur Rasheed Sahib Vs. A.R. Rahimunnissa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ386
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the concurrent order of eviction passed against the petitioner by the authorities below under the Rent Control Act on the ground of respondent --landlady's son's own occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the said Act.2. It is in evidence that P.W.1, the said son of the landlady and his wife and children along with the said landlady are residing in a rented premises bearing Door No. 24, Murthuza Begumpettah Street, Madras-14.3. One submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has inherited the said premises bearing Door No. 24, Murthuza Begumpettah Street, Madras on the death of the landlady of the said premises (who is none other than the mother of the respondent) in 1983, after the R.C.O.P. was filed, and that since the respondent had thus come to own the said premises, which is now in her occupation, Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Control Act cannot be invoked by the respondent.The ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangamani and anr. Vs. Natesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ388; (1990)2MLJ32
E.J. Bellie, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. They lost their case in both the Courts below. The suit relates to a land, 10.78 acres in two survey numbers. It originally belonged to one Madanagopal Naidu. The two defendants were tenants under him. The five plaintiffs purchased the land from Madanagopal. At the time of sale there was standing casuarina trees. The plaintiffs filed two suits (may be because of two survey numbers, two suits) on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali for their half share in the standing casuarina trees. Later on the suits were compromised as per which the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement Ex.A. 1 dated 10.5.1977. According to this the defendants agreed to purchase and the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit properly for Rs. 63,000. On the date of agreement the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of advance-As regards the balance of Rs. 60,000 it was stipulated that the defendants shall pay it in three equal instalme...
Tag this Judgment!The National Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ25
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the notice issued under Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act to recover a sum of Rs. 4,60,750/- dated 12-4-1984.2. The facts of the case arc: The petitioner company is a small scale industrial unit at Ambaltur. When the third respondent invited tenders for the supply of M.S. Rounds of certain sizes and quantities, the petitioner took part in the tender. On 15-3-1980 it is alleged that the third respondent sent a telegram to the petitioner to furnish earnest money deposit. On 17.3.1980, the petitioner regretted his inability to provide the earnest money deposit as called for, but expressed its willingness to provide bank guarantee. It seems the third respondent accepted the offer of the petitioner only for 300 tonnes of 6 M.M. Rounds, 125 tonnes of 8 M.M. Rounds and 100 tonnes of 40 M.M. Rounds and called upon the petitioner to remit Rs. 1,13,338/- and to execute another agreement. It seems that there were exchange of letters between t...
Tag this Judgment!J. Shyamala Vs. P. Sundar Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ198
Bellie, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed against an order of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in C.M.A. No. 225 of 1986 wherein he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.P.No.628 of 1982 wherein he ordered judicial separation in a petition filed by the husband against his wife for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The petitioner-husband married the respondent-wife on 24-8-1980. During the night of the marriage day itself his wife pleaded with the husband that she did not consent to the marriage but it was forced on her by her parents. He believed what all she said. Because of this there was no consummation of the marriage. He hoped that in course of time she would reconcile to the marriage and there will be consummation. But she never behaved as a wife should behave towards her husband. One day in the Music Academy Hall she sat by the side...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »