Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
Arjuna Gounder Vs. Govindaraju Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ411
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the dismissal of an application under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner herein for a declaration that the proceedings in E.P. No. 271 of 1987 are invalid and for dismissal of E.P. No. 271 of 1987.2. The short facts which are relevant for the purpose of this revision petition are as follows:The respondent obtained a decree for declaration of his title and for an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession. The decree was passed on 20.6.1986. The respondent filed E.P. No. 271 of 1987 under Order 21, Rule 10, C.P.C. for execution. In the relief column, he prayed for an order under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. for arrest of the petitioner herein for having disobeyed the decree and also for attachment of the properties of the petitioner and sale of the same. It is stated in the execution petition that the respondent had incurred a loss of Rs.20,000 on account of the petitioner's disob...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Viswanathan Chettiar Vs. T.A. Shanmugha Chettiar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Mad148
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 23 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot District, has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the decree passed in the said suit granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for accounts.2. The case of the first respondent/ plaintiff as disclosed from the plaint can be briefly stated as follows : The plaint schedule properties and other properties originally belonged to one Chinna Chettiar. The plaintiff is the grandson of the said Chinna Chettiar, he being the son of Annamalai Chettiar who is the son of the said Chinna Chettiar. Defendants 1 and 2 are the great great grandchildren of the said Chinna Chetfiar, being the grand sons respectively of Arumugha Chettiar, grand-son of Chinna Chettiar, 'A' Schedule appended in the plaint is the genealogy tree in respect of the relationship of the parties to the common ancestor, Chinna Chettiar. In a registered partition deed dat...
Tag this Judgment!Nellai Ganesan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2157
ORDER1. One Karuppan is a business man in Namakkal in Salem District. During 1984-85, he was constructing a theatre complex and was in need of huge funds for completing the construction. One Mannar Bhai is his close associate, and he knew very well about his financial commitment and dire need of fluid cash resources for completion of the theatre project.2. Two persons by name Govindarajan (accused 2) and Easwaran (accused 3 of Salem approached Karuppan and promised to help him to complete the theatre complex by procuring the requisite financial assistance from one Subramanian (accused 1) of Madurai. They also represented that they came to know of his financial needs through his close friend Mannar Bhai so as to induce him to believe their version. Karuppan agreed to avail of the promised financial assistance. Thereafter, accused 2 and 3 met Karuppan after sometime and represented that accused 1 was prepared to render financial assistance, provided some collateral security was offered f...
Tag this Judgment!Chandran and Co. and R.M.T. Nadesa Pillay and Co. Vs. Agricultural Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR61(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioners to file a return in the prescribed form. According to the petitioners, they are not liable to file a return under the Act because of the following circumstances. The petitioner in each case is a partnership firm. They are registered under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The individual partners had applied for compounding the agricultural income-tax under Section 65 of the Act. According to the petitioners, the partners of the firm have thus paid the agricultural income-tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Act. Since the entire extent of land owned by the firms had been offered for composition by the individual partners in accordance with their proportionate share in the partnership firm, it is contended that the firm is not bound to submit...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srirangammal and anr. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ300
Ratnam, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by two sureties against the common order dismissing Application Nos. 4334 and 4333 of 1989 in C.S. No. 473 of 1977 praying for cancellation of the security furnished under a security bond dated 16-9-1978 executed by the appellants and some others and registered as Document No. 1584 of 1980 pursuant to the clauses in the decree dated 6.2.1978 in C.S. No. 473 of 1977 and to discharge the sureties from further liabilities either with or without the payment of Rs.59,683/-. 2. The Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank', for short), the first respondent in these appeals, instituted C.S. No. 473 of 1977 against a partnership firm of the name of Vummidiars Agencies, represented by its three partners, who were defendants 1 to 4 in the suit, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.21,85,191-65 with interest at 16% per annum from the date of suit till payment or realisation. On 6.2.1978, a compromise was entered into between the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!State Industried Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad116; (1991)IMLJ469
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These writappeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6537, 7142 and 7143 of 1985. In each of those writ petitions, the first-respondent in the respective writ appeals was the petitioner; respondents 2 to 4 were respondents 1 to 3; and the appellant was the fourth-respondent. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking for writs of mandamus to forbear the respondents from acquiring the lands of the petitioners, on the ground of inordinate delay in the prosecution of the land acquisition proceedings. Certain dates have to be set down. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act was published on 10-5-1962. The declaration under S, 6 of the Act was published on 18-1-1969. The proceedings under S. 9(3) read with S. 10 of the Act took place only on 15-5-1985. Thus, there was a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Moorthy Vs. Drivers and Conductors Bus Service P. Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas136(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. These two apeals are directed against the order dated April 26, 1983, in C.P.No.18 of 1979. While O.S.A.No.61 of 1983 has been preferred by the sixth respondent in C.P.No.18 of 1979, O.S.A.No.39of 1984 is at the instance of respondents Nos.1,2,4 and 5 therein. The petitioners in C.P.No.18 of 1979 figure as respondents Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.A.No.61 of 1983 and as respondents NOs.1 and 2 in O.S.A.No.39 of 1984. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to according to their array in the said company petition. 2. The petitioners filed C.P.No.18 of 1979 under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging oppression and mismanagement and praying for a declaration that respondents Nos. 2,4 and 5 (appellants Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.39 of 1984) in C.P.No.18 of 1979 are not shareholders or directors of the first respondent compnay, that the second respondent is not the managing director thereof and that the purport...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Kuppuswami and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ56
ORDER1. The Petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 465 of 1988 and Crl.M.P. No. 6501 of 1988 is the same. The revision has been filed, challenging the order of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Madras, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4475 of 1988 in C.C. No. 21 of 1987, refusing to discharge the Petitioner and consequently framing a charge, against the Petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, hereinafter called, the Act. In Crl.M.P. 650 of 1988 the paryer is to call for the records in C.C. No. 21 of 1987 of the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Madras, and quash the proceedings therein, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court. In the revision as well as the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner M. S. Kuppuswami has raised almost identical grounds.2. In Crl.M.P. No. 13294 of 1989, the petitioner Thangiah, who is the accused in C.C. No. 26 of 1986 pending on the file of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ755; (1993)IMLJ440
ORDER1. The petitioner was married to one Arumugham in the year 1971. The petitioner has a son aged 11 years, two, daughters aged 8 and 5 years respectively It is stated that the petitioner was working under the 7th respondent on daily wages of Rs. 22/-. On 2-3-1986, the petitioner was told that her husband had sustained serious injuries on account of a fall in the premises of the 6th respondent. The petitioner rushed to the spot and found that her husband was in a serious condition. She and others had taken her husband to the Stanely Hospital and on the morning of 3-3-1986, her husband passed away. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had been murdered and her complaint to, the Police had not been properly investigated. She had not been informed about the findings of the investigation as required u/S. 154(2) Cr.P.C. It is under these circumstances, she approached the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid and Advice Board as a result of which, the writ petition has been filed. The...
Tag this Judgment!R. Nammalwar and 3 ors. and Vs. Govindaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC322
Arunachalam, J.Both these petitions are disposed of togther since they relate to the same calender case, in which the petitioners are the accused.1. In Crl. M.P. No. 7785 of 1985 the petitioners are accused 1, 3, 4 and 7 in C.C. No. 895 of 1985 onthe file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul subsequent to the filing of this petition, the second petitioner Rangaswami Naicker (third accused) and the fourth petitioner Srinivas Naicker (seventh accused) died. Therefore, this petition is now restricted to R. Nammalwar first petitioner (first accused) and Subbulakshmi, the third petitioner (fourth accused). The three petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 8403 of 1985 are respectively accused 2, 5 and 6 in the same celendar case.2. Both these petitions have been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 895 of 1985 on the file of the trial Court as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court.3. A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »