Chennai Court January 1991 Judgments
Air India Vs. R.M. Meenakshi Achi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC456; AIR1992Mad206; (1991)IIMLJ340
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. These two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886/90 in C.S. 560/78 and application No. 1885/90 in CS. 559/78, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31-10-1990 was passed in those two applications and another application No. 1892/90 in C.S. 557/78 on the file of this court. The above referred three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12-10-76 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The above said three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned Trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. 560/78 and C.S. 559/78, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their claims under the Carriage by Air Act 1972. But, subsequently,...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Vs. R.M. Meenakshi Achi by Duly Constituted Agent N. Sivagam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ340
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886 of 1990 in C.S. No. 560 of 1978 and Application No. 1885 of 1990 in C.S. No. 559 of 1978, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31.10.1990 was passed in those two applications and another Application No. 1892 of 1990 in C.S. No. 557 of 1978 on the file of this Court, The above referred to three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12.10.1976 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The abovesaid three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. No. 560 of 1978 and C.S. No. 559 of 1978, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their clai...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasankari Chandrasekaran and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)125; [1991]189ITR51(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. In these tax cases at the instances of the assessees, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act' : 'Whether, in the assessment of Srimathi Sivasankari Chandrasekaran and Srimathi Brinda Jayaraman for the assessment year 1974-75, the sums received by their respective husbands from the firm for services rendered to the firm is liable to be assessed by invoking section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The two assessees are the wives of two brothers, Chandrasekaran and Jayaraman, respectively. The joint family consisting of Jayaraman, Chandrasekaran and their father was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of RCC pipes. Subsequently, there was a partition in the said family, whereunder the father and the two sons continued the business but as partners under the name and style 'Messrs. Spun Pipe Co.'. The father and the two sons were partners ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpam Vs. Nirmala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC551; 1991ACJ573
K. Venkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 10.2.1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal declining to entertain I.A No. 1 of 1987 in M.C.O.P. No. 110 of 1985, on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The said LA. was one for bringing on record the petitioner as second petitioner in the M.C.O.P. No. 110 of 1985 in view of the death of the first petitioner.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held:Counter filed. Heard. Married sister is not a dependant to the injured who is since dead. Hence petition is dismissed.3. Against the above order, the present civil revision petition is filed.4. Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the view taken by the court below is contrary to the view of this court in Thailammai v. A.V. Mallayya Pillai 1981 ACJ 185 , as well as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 . According...
Tag this Judgment!P.A.S. Syed Mohideen Vs. the Joint Secretary to the Government of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2679
Mishra, J. 1. Whether the grounds merited the petitioner's detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereafter referred to as 'the Act' and whether the petitioner was rightly detained, are questions that we think are not required to be considered at all. Facts pertinent for the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not touch the grounds at all. For an alleged incident involving violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody on 17-1-1990. For the reasons and grounds emanating from the facts that were noticed in the incident dt. 15-1-1990, the Central Government ordered for petitioner's detention on 23-3-1990. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was taken in custody on 4-6-1990. On receipt of the grounds of detention and the documents supporting the order of detention, the petitioner made a representation on 5-7-199...
Tag this Judgment!Hackbridge Hewitic and Easun Ltd. and Others Vs. Provident Fund Inspec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ303
ORDER1. The petitioners in each of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are accused 1 to 6 in each of C.C. Nos. 306 to 327 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri (now stated to be pending as C.C. Nos. 757 to 778 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur). 2. M/s. Hackbridge Hewitic and Easun Limited (accused 1) is an establishment within the meaning of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneuous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952 - for short '1952 Act'). Accused 2 is the Managing Director. Accused 3 is the Executive Director. Accused 4 is the General Manager. Accused 5 is the Secretary & Financial Controller. Accused 6 is the Managing Personnel. Accused 2 to 6 are persons in charge of the establishment and are responsible for the conduct of its business. 3. Provident Fund contributions were deducted from the wages of the employees on and from May, 1984 up to February, 1987. The contributions so deducted with the matching con...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Arunachalam Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ188
ORDER1. The second accused in C.C. No. 88 of 1990 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur against whom and two others a complaint was filed by the respondent for offences under S. 49 read with Ss. 47 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act, 1974, invokes the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the above complaint quashed. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner and his co-accused is briefly as follows : The first accused in M/s. T.I. Cycles of India, Ambattur, Madras-53. The petitioner who is the second accused is the Managing Director of M/s. Tube Investment of India Limited, Madras-1. The third accused is Thiru P. Shanmugham the General Manager (Operations) of M/s. T.I. Cycles of India. On 17-8-1989, it was brought to the notice of the respondent, that cyanide wastes had been dumped in Ezhil Nagar Canal in Kodungaiyur, Madras-51 polluting the water therein, resulting in instantaneous dea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR169(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from SIPCOT should not be deducted in computing the actual cost of the capital assets entitled to depreciation and investment allowance ?' 2. Recently, we had occasion to consider an identical question while deciding Srinivas Industries v. CIT : [1991]188ITR22(Mad) , and it is not in dispute that the answer rendered there would be applicable to this reference as well. In view of this, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Arokiadas and ors. Vs. Arokiasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ409
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Executing Court dismissing an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale held on 9.3.1989. The case of the petitioners was that they had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor on 19.2.1989 under two sale deeds and they were depositing the entire amount as prescribed in Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The deposit was made on 23.3.1989. On the same day, the application was also filed. The objection raised by the respondents was that the sale in favour of the petitioners was sham and nominal and it was a fraudulent transaction and they were not entitled to file an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court has accepted that contention and dismissed the application.2. In an application, under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no question of the Court considering whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangapani Vs. K.V. Parthiban and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad203; (1991)IIMLJ163
1. The second appeal has been filed by the 7th defendant in the suit which was one for partition of paints A and B Schedule items into 16 shares and for allotment of five shares to the plaintiff.2. The Short facts are these;One Veararaghava Gounder,the father of the plaintiff, second defendant and third defendant, and the husband of the first defendant was the head of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons.Veeraraghava Gounder has four songs.The eldest son by name Ramabiran who was examined as P.W.3 in the suit had relinquished his interest in the family properties.The second defendant was the second son.The plaintiff and third defendant are younger to him.Veeraraghava Gounder died sometime in 1961.The second defendant was admittedly managing the properties after the father's death.The case set out in the plaint is that the second defendant was a drunkard and he was leading a wayward life with concubines.According to the plaint, the debts incurred by the second defendant a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »