Chennai Court January 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijayraj Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC281; 1992(57)ELT23(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on Wednesday the 9th day of January 1991 and on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Kantwala for M/s. T. Muthuraman, A. K. Jayaraj and M. Jawahar, Advocates for the petitioner, and on notice Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 of Mr. M. Muthappan, Advocate for the 4th respondent, the Court made the following order :- Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. Having regard to the scope of the writ petition, I have taken up the writ petition itself for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 2. The petitioner is the Constituted Attorney of M/s. West Yong Traders. The petitioner-firm claims to be well known suppliers and exporters of various type...
R. Govindarajan Vs. Devaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ32
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition has to be allowed ojva very short ground that the suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable. In the plaint, it is repeatedly stated that the defendant is a lunatic and the plaintiffs are his curators and guardians. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the specific averment is : 'The defendant is a lunatic suffering from the said disease for the past 14 years'. Again it is stated: 'The plaintiffs are acting as the curators and guardians of the-defendant for the past 14 years'. In paragraph 5, it is repeated that the plaintiffs are the curators and guardians of the defendant. Again in paragraph 7 it is alleged that the plaintiffs are cultivating the suit lands as guardians and curators of the defendant. In paragraph 10 it is stated that the plaintiffs are appointed as curators and guardians of the defendant on 10.6.1983 under the registered partition deed. Thus, the entire plaint is on the footing that the defendant is a lunatic and the plainti...
A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons and ors. Vs. S. Rathnaswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ183
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The second appeal by the defendant firm is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 7.2.1980 in A.S. No. 81 of 1979, reversing the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Coimbatore in O.S. No. 374 of 1976 dated 13.9.1978. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 8,442.15, the amount due under the hundi Ex A-1, dated 12.4.1973 for a sum of Rs. 5, 000 with interest thereon. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit hundi was not supported by consideration. But, the lower apellate court has decreed the suit on the ground that the suit hundi is supported by consideration. No doubt, there was some dispute even with reference to execution of the suit hundi. As per the written statement, the defendant only admitted his signature in the suit hundi, and his case is that at the time of the execution of a prior hundi, the plaintiff had obtained the signature of the defendant in two blank hundies which ought to have been probably u...
N.S. Gopalram Vs. S.L. Maheswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ243
ORDERS.T. Ramalingam, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. His landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 39 of 1987 on the file of the rent Controller, Melur. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P., the landlady died. On her death, the beneficiary under a registered will executed by the landlady sought to implead herself as a person entitled to prosecution the proceedings. The learned Rent Controller allowed here to be impleaded as a person entitled to prosecute the petition. It is against that, this revision has been filed by the legal representative.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that without proving the will, it is not open to the beneficiary under the will to prosecute the eviction proceedings. I do not agree with him. The will is a registered one. As such, a prima facie case has been made out and the beneficiary under a registered will is entitled to prosecute the eviction proceedings initiated by the testator. In case the tenant feels that the will is a forgery, i...
Naresh M. Mehta Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)219; [1991]188ITR585(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. There was a total extent of about 8,563 square feet of land with building at 94, Poes Garderi Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86, comprised in R. S. No. 1567/32, Block 31, Mylapore Division. Part of the said property comprising of 2,831 square feet of land together with superstructure with a plinth area of 2,400 square feet, had been sold to the petitioner on January 19, 1990, for a consideration of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. It is stated that a wall was constructed to separate the rest of the land, being an extent of 5,732 square feet, with a building over an extent of 3,127 square feet. The division of this property is such that the rest of the land being 5,732 square feet with a building cannot be used by anybody except by the petitioner who is the purchaser of the portion already sold or with his permission. On February 15, 1990, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Mrs. Pushpa Rani, the owner of the property to buy the rest of the land, namely, 5,732 square feet, for a...
M. S. Vs. Samikalai Nadar (Huf) V. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: [1991]39ITD143(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Ragarajan (Judicial Member) - These appeals by the assessee and the revenue relate to the valuation of an industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. Among other assets, the assessee had a textile mill. The assessee showed the value at the figures given in the Balance Sheet. In completing the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, corresponding to the valuation date 31-3-1983, the WTO re-valued the Mills building and the land at Rs. 7,12,461 as against Rs. 4,04,083 and the machinery at Rs. 34,65,300 as against Rs. 21,95,912 and accepted the value of the other assets in the Balance Sheet at Rs. 14,49,785. For the assessment year 1984-85, corresponding to the valuation date 31-3-1984, the value of the factory buildings was taken at Rs. 10,36,487 as against Rs. 10,13,515 shown in the books and the machinery at Rs. 48,57,400 as against Rs. 29,59,506.2. The assessee appealed and contended that the valuation of the m...
Natarajswamy Vs. Gnenambal Abraham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad25
ORDER1. The defendant is the petitioner in these revisions. C.R.P. No. 3388 of 1990 is against the order passed in I.A. No. 45 of 1990 in A.S. No. 46 of 1990. C.R.P. No. 3389 of 1990 is against the order passed in I.A. No. 46 of 1990 in A.S. No. 47 of 1990. Before the appellate Court, the plaintiff/ respondent herein filed the said petitions for amendment under O.6, R. 17, C.P.C. In the trial Court the suits were filed to recover the amounts due on the promissory notes. The suits were dismissed since the promissory notes arc not properly stamped. As against the judgments of the trial court, the plaintiff filed the above said two appeals before the first appellate court. In the first appellate court, the plaintiff sought for the amendment of the prayer portion of the plaints so as to enable the plaintiff to sue on original cause of action. This amendment was allowed by the first appellate court, in both the appeals. As against these orders, the present revisions were preferred by the de...
K.R. Venkatachalam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ424
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, who was an Assistant Executive Engineer, in the Public Works Department, filed W.P. No. 569 of 1984 in this Court, questioning the validity of the order of the first respondent-State Government dismissing him from service. A charge memo had been issued to him on 10.5.1979 calling upon him to show cause, followed by an inquiry by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Division, who submitted his report on 7.11.1979. On receipt of this report, the State Government found certain defects in the proceedings and ordered accordingly for a fresh inquiry. The inquiry this time was entrusted to the personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle, who submitted his report on 6.3.1980. Acting upon the said report, the first respondent came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Accordingly, a second show cause notice calling upon him to offer his explana...
Krishnamoorthy Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1735
1. The appellant was tried in S.T.C. (E.C.) No. 30 of 1986 on true file of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cases, Thanjavur for having violated clause 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 punishable under S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial Court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The sustainability of the verdict of the learned trial Judge is challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case will have to be stated in brief for the disposal of this appeal. The petitioner was at the relevant time the Branch Manager of Thanjavur Co-operative wholesale Stores Limited No. 1 situate at Pattukkottai. When the sales depot was inspected by the higher authorities, certain irregularities, in the distribution of scheduled commodities to the card holders, were noticed. The inspection revealed that the record maintained by the ...
Lakshmi Ammal and Another Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad27; (1991)IMLJ436
ORDER1. These two revision petitions arise out of proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Unfortunately the letigation has been pending for an inordinately long time, thus putting the owners of the lands to considerable hardship and serious prejudice.2. C.R.P. No. 3368 of 1988 pertains to the lands owned by one Arunachala Reddiar, who is no more. His wife Lakshmiammal is the petitioner, having entered his shoes. C.R.P. No. 3369 of 1988 relates to the lands owned by Lakshmi Ammal herself. She is the petitioner therein in her own right.3. On 13-11-1968 a notification was issued under S. 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', declaring a surplus of 117.81 ordinary acres in the holdings of both the husband and wife. On2-6-1969, the Government took possession of the said extent of lands. On 12-9-1973 a revised notification was issued reducing the surplus to 8...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »