Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
Gurbans Singh, Assistant Collector Customs Vs. the Deputy Director (P) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ217
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the second respondent in connection with his order in No. A(1)26/5/8 AEM (M) 6039, dt. 23-8-1988, quash the same and to direct the second respondent to allot the petitioner at least Type-C quarters or at least Hostel accommodation in lieu of Type-D quarter under the Petitioner's occupation, subject to the provisions of allotment of Government Residence (General Pool in Madras) Rules, 1963.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Petition that the Petitioner is working as Assistant Collector of Customs at Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Madras. In pursuance of his application for allotment of residential quarters, the second respondent passed orders on 4-8-1987 allotting him Quarter No. 5, Block No. 26, Type D at Besant Nagar and forwarded the same to him. In pursuance of the ...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Moopanar, M.L.A. and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2685
Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ to set at liberty an alleged 20,000 (Congress-I) party members. 2. This writ petition is filed by seven petitioners the first, sixth and the seventh petitioners being M.L.As. and the other petitioners, being M.Ps. as a public interest litigation, on their own behalf and on behalf of 20,000 Congress (I) party members who have have arrested during the recent agitation to name a Railway Station after the late Sri Kamraj, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petition singed by the said seven petitioners was treated as a writ of Habeas Corpus in view of the fact that all of them were under custody and the matter relates to thousands of persons who are under custody. The writ petition was admitted as a public interest litigation taking into consideration of the fact that the question involved in this writ petition is a matter of public importance and the question ra...
Tag this Judgment!Munaimmal and Others Vs. R. Sundara Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad55
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-4-1988 in R.C.A. No. 57 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reversing the order dated 4-9-1986 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thirumangalam on an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act filed by the respondent herein.2. The respondent-landlord filed R.C. O.P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thirumangalam, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for eviction of the petitioners herein. The case of the landlord is that the premises bearing Door No. 19, Bazaar Street, Peraiyur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk is a non-residential one, that the respondent herein purchased the property from his predecessor for the purpose of starting a jewellery shop and money-lending business at that building, that the respondent h...
Tag this Judgment!Thaniel Victor Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2416
ORDER1. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 519 of 1988 on the file of the Courtallam Police Station, Tirunelveli-Kattabomman District, registered for an offence under S. 376, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that on 10-4-1988 at or about 8 p.m. when the first informant Prema went to the Petitioner's house to purchase beedi leaves, the latter raped her in his house, and while promising to marry her advised her not to disclose the alleged occurrence to anyone else. However, Prema is said to have disclosed this incident to her mother, two months later, leading to the launching of the F.I.R. on 30-12-1988 at or about 12.00 Noon, after eight months. 3. The Petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 191 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under S. 438 Cr.P.C., Praying for release on bail in the event of arrest in respect of Crime No. 519 of 1988. The plea made by the petitioner was acceded to and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event o...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Kishore and Another Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others Overrule ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR264(Mad)
S. Ramalingam, J. 1. In or about the year 1957, the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, allotted a plot measuring 83' x 120' (total 9,960 sq. ft.) in Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, in favour of one A. Srinivasan. He die d in the year 1962 leaving behind as his heirs under the Hindu Secession Act, his wife, a son and three daughters. When succession was opened by the demise of the father, each one of the aforesaid class 1 heirs secured a quantified share in the property left behind by A. Srinivasan. On April 8, 1987, a family arrangement was entered into under the terms of which it was agreed that the son (4th respondent herein) would take 26%, the wife (5th respondent) 23% and each one of the daughters (respondents Nos. 6 to 8) 17% out of the aforesaid property. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 15951 of 1988, the father and the petitioner in W.P. No. 4537 of 1988 who is his son, approached respondents Nos. 4 to 8 with an offer to purchase, and an agreement was entered into between these two...
Tag this Judgment!S. S. Kamal Abdul Nazeer Vs. the Commissioner, Kadayanallur Panchayat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ493
ORDERK. S. Bakthavatsalam1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as Medical Officer, Panchayat Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Nellai Kattambomman District...2. The petitioner's name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the first respondent Panchayat Union for consideration for the post of Medical Officer and he was called for an interview. An order of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 13.9.1984, and that order was passed after it was approved by the Panchayat Union Council in its meeting held on 13.9.1984. Accordingly the petitioner joined duty on 21.9.1984 and the appointment of the petitioner as Medical Officer, Panchayat. Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union was approved by the Director of Medical Services by his order dated 10.5.1985. This has been done on a report of the of the District Medical Officer, Tirunelveli Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Arulanandar Teacher Training Institute, Rep by the Correspondent Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ77
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This petition is one for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to grant recognition to the petitioner institution and pass further orders.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the institution commenced in the year 1987. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the petitioner sent several reminders to the 1st and 2nd respondents for recognition of the institution. It is further averred that in the middle of December 1989, the staff from Chief Educational Officer's office, Erode, came and inspected the petitioner-school. In paragraph 6, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam in his proceedings No. A/2/16108/87 dated 18.1.1988 enquired the petitioners and obtained statement regarding the conduct of Teacher Training Course and the Institute. In paragraph 7, it is averred that on 5-1-90 Deputy Inspector of Schools from Gobichettipalayam verified and conducted enquiry regarding th...
Tag this Judgment!Muniammal and ors. Vs. R. Sundara Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ186
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14.4.1988 in R.C.A.No.57 of 1.986 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, the Appellate authority uner the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) reversing the order dated 4.9.1986 in R.C.O.P.No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif,), Thirumangalam on an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act filed by the respondent herein.2. The respondent - landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent. Controller Thirumangalam, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for eviction of the petitioners herein. The case of the landlord is that the premises bearing Door No.19, Bazar Street, Peraiyur, village Thirumangalam Taluk is a non-residential one, that the respondent herein purchased the property from his predeceassor for the purpose of starting a jewellery shop and money lending business at that building, tha...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. New Era Engg. Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD467(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Rangayya, Accountant Member - These two appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC for the asst. years 1980-81 and 1982-83, cancelling the interest levied u/s. 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the two years under consideration.2. The assessee is stated to have credited interest of Rs. 4,40,174 and Rs. 4,85,605 to the accounts of certain parties from whom it borrowed monies for its business, during the accounting years relevant to the asst. years 1980-81 and 1982-83, which ended on 30-6-79 and 30-6-1981 respectively. The assessee deducted tax of Rs. 42,614 and Rs. 48,561 from the above amounts of interest credited to the parties account and paid to the Government on 9-12-1980 and 2-2-1981 for the asst. year 1980-81 and on 1-2-1983 for the asst. year 1982-83. On the ground that there was a delay in payment of the tax deducted at source, the ITO levied interest of Rs. 7,285 and Rs. 9,227 u/s. 201(1A), read with Rule 30(b)....
Tag this Judgment!Lere Ram and Another Vs. Joint Secretary to Government Ministry of Fin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1851
Venkataswami, J.1. In all these cases, the common point raised is, whether the detention order in each one of the cases is sustainable, in view of the fact that the grounds of detention do not contain any compelling necessity for detaining the detenu in each case. This point has been dealt with, in the lignt of the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, : 1990CriLJ1232 , in W.P. Nos. 11348 to 11351 of 1989 dated 14-3-1990. The learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this position. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents in each of the writ petitions are directed to release the detenu in each case, forthwith unless the detention of the detenu in each case is required in connection with in any other case.2. Petition allowed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »