Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
P.S. Venkatarajan Vs. T.A. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ508
ORDERV. Ratnam J.1. This Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the tenant, is directed against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on an application filed by the respondent-landlord under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The premises bearing door No. 136, Cutchery Street, Thirupattur Town, belonging to the respondent herein was let out to the petitioner under a registered tenancy agreement dated 25.7.1978 for a period of five years from 1.8.1978 to 31.7.1985 on a monthly rental of Rs. 100 payable on the 5th of every month. There was also a provision in the rental agreement that major repairs in respect of the premises have to be carried out by the landlord, while minor repairs have to be attended to by the tenant. A sum of Rs. 7,000 was also paid by the petitioner to the respondent as refundable advance without interest on ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad135
ORDER1. W. M. P. No. 3565 of 1990 is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 to expunge the remarks made by me in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 on 12-2-1990.2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner herein points out that the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 8427 of 1989, that 'the affidavit order is in force' was erroneous and that it was only a genuine error caused on account of mistakes and omissions in the office of the City Government Pleader, which in turn misled the learned Government Advocate who prepared the counter-affidavit in that writ petition. The learned Advocate General further states that the averments in the counter-affidavit are not made wantonly but it was only a genuine mistake. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the details due to communication gap between the petitioner office and the office of the City Government Pleader, with regard to the stage of the suit and the inter...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Ranganayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ421
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dt.4-2-1984 in CMA.NO. 43 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority (Subordinate- fudge) Karur, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing Door No. 12-K situate in Pugalur Road, Inam Karur Sub Registrar District and Karur Village, West Karur Registration District. The respondent herein instituted proceedings, viz., R.C.O.P.No. 23 of 1981 on the file of the Rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Karur, under Section 10(2) (ii) (b) of the Act for eviction on the ground that the Petitioner had taken the demised premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 40 to run the handloom business known as 'Revathi Textiles'. Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs. 120 p.m. with effect from 18-4-1981. The Petitioner late...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Vysia Samajam, Represented by President, S.K. Dhandapani Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ371
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These matters have come up before this Bench on a reference by Nainar Sundaram, J., on account of conflicting views expressed in the judgments of learned single Judges, namely: 1. M. M Ismail, J. (as he then was) in Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91. L.W. 649 : 1978 T.L.N.J. 238; 2. Maheswaran, J., in T.V. Rathnam v. P. Janakiraman (1985) 98. L.W. 515, Ratnam, J., in Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan (1988) 2 L.W. 52 and 3. KM. Natarajan, J., in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985. T.L.N.J. 279, CMP. SR. Nos. 10980 and 10981 of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983. on the important question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings to bring on record legal representatives in revision before this Court under Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974. For a proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to quote the order of reference made before us which reads as follows:The above (C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 101067 to 101069 ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Mohamed Saliha Vs. the Management of A. Abdul Shukoor and Co. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ5
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal directed against the order of the learned sing Judge in W.P. No. 4085 of 1980. That was as petition preferred by the first respondent questioning the Award of the second respondent I.D. No. 270 of 1978. By that Award, non-employment of the appellant by the (SIC) respondent was held to be not justified, and the was a direction for reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. It will be convenient if we refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The first-respondent was in the employ of the petitioner as a van driver. The finding rendered by the second respondent in the industrial dispute is to the effect that the employment of the first respondent with the petitioner commenced on 29.5.1973. According to the first-respondent, his services were terminated without any reasonable cause in April, 1978. According to the petitioner, the first-respondent left the services on his o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vedagiri, Prop. Vedachalam Transports Thirumazhi, Chengalpattu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad85
1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the counter affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the argument of Mr. V. P. Raman for Mrs. Jayanthi Natarajan, advocate for the petitioner, and of the Advocate-General for Mr. R. Balasubramanian, advocate for the 1st respondent, and of the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein, the Court made the following Order :--The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: '..... to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to call for the records relating to the order dated 17-1-1990 passed by the third respondent in R. No. A.3/6195/84 and quash the same and directing the third respondent not to interfere with the operation of the petitioner's bus, without giving him a proper hearing in accordance with the rules .....' 2. The petitioner herein is a stage carriage operator, operat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. S.S.M. Finishing Cent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Mad)189; [1990]186ITR597(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this case reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to higher rate of development rebate as provided in Section 33(1)(b)(i) of the Act in repsect of the machinery used by it in its business (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the operations carried on by the assessee would amount to manufacture of texiles as specified in item No. 32 of the Fifth Schedule ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, in the course of the assessment proceedings, it claimed development rebate at the higher rate of 25% in accordance with the provisions of Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Sons and Others Vs. N. Subramanian, Income-tax Officer, Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR82(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. A common question arises for decision in all these petitions and hence they are isposed of together. The question is whether an assessee who had filed an application before the Settlement Commission under section 245C of the Income-tax Act the terms of which include grant of immunity from prosecution under section 245H of the Act and such application had been allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission under section 245D of the Act, would still be liable for prosecution when the Settlement Commission had not passed final orders on the said application under 245D(4) of the Act. 2. In each one of these petitions, certain relevant dates have to be recorded. Crim nal M. P. No. 2849 of 1983 has been filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 2163 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, initiated by the respondent, viz., Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Madras, alleging commission of offences by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!A. Logammal Vs. Secretary to Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ509
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner's lands of about 700 sq.ft. situate in R.S.No:1004/11 part were notified under Central Act I of 1894 for acquisition for a project called Mass Rapid Transit System connecting Madras Beach and Luz. The notification under Section 4(1) was published in the gazette on 12.2.1986 and the declaration under Section 6 was published on 28.3.1987 in the gazette. Thereafter, an inquiry under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act was held, in which the petitioner participated. The award was made on 31.3.1989.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the notification under Section 4(1) and also declaration under Section 6 in respect of the petitioner's land and building and to quash the same.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges three contentions. The first is that there was a delay in the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the delay is fatal. He would submit that as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Balambika Vs. Elizabeth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ369
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. This revision by the mortgagee is filed against the dismissal of E.A.No. 105 of 1989 filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and in E.P.No. 130 of 1988 in O.P.No. 1 of 1986. The said O.P.No. 1 of 1986 was filed by the respondent usufructuory mortgagor herein, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. Admittedly in O.P.No. 1 of 1986 the respondent-mortgagor of the property in question, deposited the mortgage amount on 24-1-1986 as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act and notice was ordered to the mortgagee-petitioner herein as per the said section and though he entered appearance and was given time for filing counter on 11-11-1986 and on 3-12-1986 he did not file any counter. So, the respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the said O.P. was examined and there was no cross-examination by the petitioner herein, nor the petitioner herein let in any oral or documentary evidence. Never was it also pleaded tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »