Chennai Court August 1990 Judgments
Hajee M. Mohamed Kassim and Others Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police, Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2921
ORDER1. Though the petitioners are different in these petitions, they are disposed of together since a common question of law is involved. These petitions have been filed u/S. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending against each of them in C.C. Nos. 447/86, 448/86, 449/86 and 446/86 respectively on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakuari at Nagercoil. 2. The petitioner in each one of these petitions, is being prosecuted by the respondent, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil for the alleged commission of an offence punishable u/S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Para 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. 3. Facts, in brief, in each one of these petitions will have to be stated : 4. Crl.M.P. No. 12824/1986 :- The petitioner, a citizen of India by birth, had obtained a Malaysian passport and while he arrived in India on 6-2-1988, (1984) he was permitted to stay in the country...
Tag this Judgment!Karikadai Balu Vs. Balakrishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ452
Somasundaram, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 255 of 1980 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Madurai Taluk is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 in the above mentioned suit are respondents in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this judgment by their nomenclature given in the suit.2., The facts necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed this suit O.S. No. 255 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men, and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and for directing the first defendant to deliver possession of the portion of the suit property marked as GHLIH in the Commissioner's plan and also the portions of the property over which he has put up a mutton stall and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant...
Tag this Judgment!P. Natesan Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ79
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 301 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif of Mettur is the appellant in the second appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties arereferred to in this judgment by their nomenclature given in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 301 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif of Mettur for a declaration that the memo dated 7.3.1981 issued by the defendant retiring the plaintiff from service with effect from 30.6.1982 is void and not binding on him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from retiring the plaintiff from service on 30.6.1982. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff joined the Electricity Board as a casual labour at Karur in 1960. Subsequently he joined the office of the defendant at Sentharapatti in 1965. He was permanently appointed as a helper in the defendant-Board on 1.1.1973. The plaintiff was asked to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC145
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner-company is a Small Scale Industry engaged in the manufacture of Solidaire Television sets. The petitioner was granted a licence on 18-3-1981 for the import of VTR Deck mechanism, electronic components and raw materials under Appendix V of the 1981 Policy Book by the controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. The 5th respondent, by his letter dated 20-5-1981 fixed the capacity limit of the production at 500 numbers per annum of VTR/VCR. The petitioner imported the goods allegedly in accordance with the licence issued to him. The third respondent, however, refused permission to clear the goods and instead issued a show cause notice dated 12-8-1981 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act. By a letter dated 10-12-1981, the Assistant Collector of Customs requested the petitioner to make arrangements for a detailed examination of the consignment by the Customs Department before the adjudication proceedings. After such inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Vs. M.A.M. Meyyappan Ambalam and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)60MLJ1
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate court has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, reversing the judgment of the District Munsif, Devakottai.2. The case of the appellant-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, who filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is briefly as follows: One M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam was the common ancestor and he is the grandfather of the plaintiff. The said M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam had got two sons M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam and M.A.M. Meyyappan Ambalam, the second defendant herein. M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam has got three sons and the plaintiff is the second son of the said M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam and he was born on 17.5.1943. The second defendant married one Meenakshi as his first wife in 1943 who died in or about 1945 due to small box. When the said Meenakshi got affected with small pox, she wanted the plaintiff to be adopted to herse...
Tag this Judgment!B. Viswanathiah and Co. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR53(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. T.C.P. Nos. 207 to 209 and 211 of 1990. - In these tax case petitions at the instance of the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a direction is sought to the Tribunal to refer the following four questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there were materials before the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 3,42,025 represented income of the firm from other sources for the assessment year 1965-66 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the amounts represented income of the firm is a reasonable view on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Hindu undivided family did not possess cash of Rs. 14,35,834 or any portion thereof on September 24, 1961, and the above conclusion of the Tribunal was reasonable on the facts and in the circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Hariharan Vs. Malliga and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC347
Srinivasan, J.1. The revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor who is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. The order sought to be revised is one directing the arrest of the petitioner here in on the ground that he had not complied with the order of the executing Court dated 21-4-1989, directing him to return the jewels to the 1st respondent.2. The relevant facts are as follows :--The 1st respondent herein filed O.P. 84 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner and a direction to the petitioner herein to hand over the properties mentioned in the schedule to the petition as per Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it was stated as follows:--'At the time of the marriage, the petitioner's parents on behalf of the petitioner had presented and handed over to the first respondent the properties mentioned in the schedule for cond...
Tag this Judgment!Shaporji Pollonji and Company (P.) Ltd. Salem and anr. Vs. A. Nishat a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)229MLJ1
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The teriants, against whom the Appellate Authority had passed an order for eviction, on an application taken out by the respondents herein in R.C.O.P. No. 134 of 1983 under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 10 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred t(c) as 'the Act') are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. There is no dispute that the respondents herein are the landlords of the premises in the occupation-of the petitioners and that they had purchased the premises in moieties under Exs. A-1 and A.2 dated 25.6.1980. In R.C.O.P. No. 134 of 1983 before the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Salem, the respondents prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioners on the ground that they had purchased the property in the occupation of the petitioners for their own use and enjoyment and that they also bona fide required the premises for that purpose. The application was resisted ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Selvaraj Vs. P. Singaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)275MLJ1
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful first defendant before the lower court has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 123 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The first respondent plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to 38/48 share in the suit property and for passing a preliminary decree by appointing a commissioner for division of the plaintiffs share by metes and bounds and for passing a final decree in terms of commissioner's report and allotting the specified portion and putting the plaintiff in the specified portion. At the outset we wish to point out that this appeal is filed challenging the finding of the trial judge in issue 6 with regard to the tenancy rights claimed by the first defendant in the portion of the suit property which has been found against the first defendant. Hence, it is needless to traverse the entire allegations in detail in this appeal and it is enough if the details which...
Tag this Judgment!Daniel and ors. Vs. Chellakkan Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ542
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1982 made in A.S.No.87 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai whereunder the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai dated 26.9.1981 made in E.P.No.281 of 1980 in O.S. No.34 of 1979 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made by the lower appellate Court.2. The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs and in the suit filed by them, a preliminary decree was passed for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondent. A final decree was also passed. Consequently, the appellants filed E.P.No.281 of 1980 on 2.7.1980 praying for delivery of possession of the property after assessing the value of improvements, if any, made in terms of the final decree. After contest, the trial Court held that the respondent has not produced any records to show that he has...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »