Chennai Court August 1990 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmuraikku Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad233
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 242 of 1981 on the file of the DistrictMunsif of Sathur are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the respondents in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties in this second appeal are referred to by their nomenclature given in the suit.2. The first plaintiff is the managing committee of A. V. M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary School belonging to Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai and it is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented by its Secretary. The second plaintiff is the president and the third plaintiff is the member of the School managing committee. The fourth plaintiff is the president of Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai. The fifth plaintiff is the Secretary of the said committee. The plaintiffs filed the suit (a) for declaration that the Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai Higher Secondary School and the primary school named as A.V.M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary Sch...
Tag this Judgment!K. Guruswamy and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1890
Arunachalam, J.1. The prisoners concerned in these petitions were verdicted by Court to die and are awaiting execution. Originally these writ petitions were listed along with several other similar writ petitions which we have disposed of by a common order dated 15-12-1989. These writ petitions were kept in abeyance, since the petitioners had desired to implead the Central Government as a party, for consideration of one of their pleas raised in each one of these petitions. The disposals, of the earlier writ petitions were based mainly on the long delay of the Executive, in disposing of the mercy petitions of those petitioners, who had claimed to have suffered mental agony of living under the shadow of death for a long long period.2. In all these writ petitions the arguments advanced were two-fold. One was that there was long delay in the disposal of the mercy petitions preferred by them to the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the President of India and the second was that though they had addr...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mathivathanan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR503(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in CC. No. 267 of 1987 pending on the file of the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate E. O. I., Madras. At the instance of the Income-tax officer, Investigation, City Circle V, Madras - 600 034, he is being prosecuted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 193, 196 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 276C(2) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he is an engineering contractor who wanted to take civil engineering contracts from the Public Works Department, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, etc., and for the purpose of registering himself as a contractor with the above authorities, he had to file income-tax clearance certificates as regards his income-tax dues. Though the petitioner was assessed to income-tax in City Circle V - (7), Madras, from the assessment year 1971-72 onwards, he had filed an application for and income-tax clearance cer...
Tag this Judgment!Seeranga Gounder and Three ors. Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Refor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)131MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The civil miscellaneous petition is for modification of the order passed in C.R.P. No. 2316 of 1983 by this Court by directing the first respondent therein to drop the proceedings in respect of the lands in dispute. The writ petition is for issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in F2 Misc., Petition 11/88 (L. Reforms) in R.P. No. 75/88 and quash the order dated 25.8.1988 and implead the petitioners as parties to the said R.P. No. 75/88. The petitioners in the civil miscellaneous petition and the writ petition are the same.2. Relevant facts are as follows: Petitioners' father by name Perumal Gounder was a tenant under the second respondent in the civil miscellaneous petition and the third respondent in the writ petition, hereinafter referred to as the 'land owner' with respect to an extent of 10.45 acres in S.F. No. 28-A, 31 and 32 of Pudukalayanur Village of Sathi taluk, Periyar district. The land owner file...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthilal M. Thakker and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ284
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners originally challenged the award proceedings which was dated 22.9.1986 under the Land Acquisition Act. By a subsequent amendment to the prayer in the Writ petition, the petitioners attack the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 31.3.1982 and the declaration which was published on 21.11.1984.2. The lands were acquired for providing a splay at the junction of Dr. Alagappa Road and Gangadeeswarar Koil Street, within the limits of Corporation of Madras. The petitioners purchased the lands in June, 1986 long after the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only at the stage of award proceedings, the petitioners came in. They had filed their objections during the award inquiry.3. The only question which is raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Veluswami is that a larger extent had been acquired than the extent which was notified originally under Section 4(1) of the Land A...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmuraikku Pathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ395
Somasundaram, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 242 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif of Sathur are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the respondents in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties in this second appeal are referred to by their nomanclature given in the suit.2. The first plaintiff is the managing committee of A.V.M. Marimuthu, Nadar Higher Secondary School belonging the Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai and it is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act representated by its Secretary. The second plaintiff is the president and the third plaintiff is the member of the school managing committee. The fourth plaintiff is the president of Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai. The fifth plaintiff is the Secretary of the said committee. The plaintiffs filed the suit (a) for declaration that the Vilampatti Nadar Uravinmurai Higher Secondary School and the primary school named as A.V.M. Marimuthu Nadar Hi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ghouse and ors. Vs. Ammakamma Charities by Its Trustees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ501
Somasundaram, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No.8949 of 1976 on the file of XI City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants in this appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their nomenclature given in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in H.R.C.No.3082 of 1971 on the file of the VI Court of Small Causes at Madras is illegal, unenforceable and executable. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff is the tenant of the plaint schedule mentioned property under the defendants. The defendants filed eviction petition in H. R.C.No.3082 of 1971 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the schedule mentioned premises and eviction was ordered after contest on 28.11.1973. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal in H.R.A. No. 24 of 1974 and the same was dismissed on 7.8.1974. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandran Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Ref ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ496
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the first respondent dated 27.7.1984 in his proceeding in D.Dis.2722/84 and to direct the second respondent to decide the case again in accordance with the provisions of law. The petitioner owned and possessed land of an extent of about 45-1/2 cents, which is equivalent to 1800 square meters approximately, comprised in R.S. No. 210/2 and situated in Thiruvanmiyur village. The family of the petitioner consists of the petitioner, his wife and his son on the date when the Act viz., The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force with effect from 3.8.1976. Under Section 3(p) of the Act, vacant land means, land not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include (i) land on which construction of a building is not pe...
Tag this Judgment!Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: 1994LC211(Madras); 1992(58)ELT403(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 31-5-1982 and consequently directing to refund the amount of Rs. 43,542.69 which was adjusted against the claim made by the said respondent. 2. The writ petitioners are manufacturers of Coated Abrasives and Grinding wheels. The writ petitioners submit that they manufacture several small items and in the process it was inevitable due to the nature and volume of goods handled for certain shortages to occur every year. After annual stock-taking, a statement was filed before the authorities and they were aware of the said shortages. It was pointed out by the petitioner that shortages would be more in the smaller and bulk items, since it depended upon the nature of the goods and the quantity of goods produced and handled. In the year 1980, the Superintendent, Central Excise raised certain demands for the years 1973-1979, and the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Non Ferrous Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC179; 1991LC272(Madras); 1991(52)ELT487(Mad)
ORDER1. These two writ petitions may be considered together since they involve common issues both on facts and law. W.P. No. 9525 of 1982 has been filed for issue of A Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the second respondent dated 4-10-1982 in A. No. 289/82(M)/C.No. V/27/13/82 whereunder the second respondent rejected the appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the third respondent dated 17-7-1982. W.P. No. 9526 of 1982 is for a writ Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the consequent demand made by the fourth respondent in Demand No. V/27/2/2/77 Serial No. E/63-114531 dated 3-8-1982 and forbearing him from enforcing the demand made therein.2. Before dealing with the various contentions raised, the facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows : The Writ petitioners were having a Rolling Mill where they convert Aluminium Ingots into Redraw Rods which are the raw material for Aluminium conductors. The petitioners have been licensed under the provisions of the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »