Chennai Court October 1991 Judgments
Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam Vs. Chakravarthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ83
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal is against the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai in A.S. No. 8 of 1979, which was in turn against O.S. No. 143 of 1978on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The suit was tried along with six other suits filed by the same plaintiff againstthe other tenants occupying its properties. The suits are disposed of by a common judgment by the District Munsif on 29.4.1978. The appeals against the judgments and decrees in all the suits were also disposed of by a common judgment by the Subordinate Judge dated 30.10.1979. Both the courts have held that the respondent herein and the other tenants are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession. Consequently, the suits were dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed this second appeal as well as Second Appeal Nos. 1461 to 1466 of 1980. Those second appeals were heard by ...
Tag this Judgment!T.D. Digambar Vs. Central Bank of India Represented by Chairman and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ87
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in RO:PRS.AD:82/116, dated 8.7.1982, the memo by which the petitioner was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 17.7.1982 that the termination did not amount to retrenchment, and that notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was being given retrenchment compensation which he would have drawn if the termination had amounted to retrenchment and that a pay order for Rs. 3,982.17 being the three months pay and allowances was being also attached.2. The petitioner was appointed as Shroff-cum-Collection Clerk in the services of the respondent-bank on 17.11.1968. On 4.11.1979, the petitioner sought permission from the first respondent for filing an insolvency petition as he had incurred debts of Rs. 20,000 at high rate of interest, on 15.4.1980, the petitioner appears to have been suspended on the basis of the above letter while he...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanathan Silk Centre Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR131(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Eight writ petitions bearing Nos. 6095 to 6102 of 1987 came to be dismissed by a learned single judge of this court, on June 22, 1987, by a common order, and since the questions of law and fact are common, all the eight writ appeals are being disposed of in common. 2. The facts are short and simple. The writ petitioners/appellants were the assessees. They had submitted their income-tax returns for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84 every year in accordance with the provisions of law. On January 24, 1986, the appellants herein filed an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, stating therein that, in the returns tiled by the appellants under the Act, they had omitted to claim the benefit under section 80HH of the Act since they had not been advised properly by the chartered accountant at that time and that the appellants had later on engaged the services of another chartered ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palanichamy Vs. Muthiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ523
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The contention put forward by the tenant, who is the petitioner, is that under the provisions of Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 the tenant is bound to pay or deposit only 1/4th of the total amount of rent due for the years referred to in the section including what he had paid earlier. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to state a few facts. The tenant is in arrears for faslis 1391 to 1398. The total rent payable for those years is Rs. 1,26,000 and odd. In an appeal pending in this Court, namely, A.S. No. 562 of 1987, the tenant was directed to deposit Rs. 21,000 and he has complied with the order. Apart from that, the tenant has also paid a sum of Rs. 24,500 towards rent for the said years. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,500 has already been paid. According to the order of the Revenue Court, which is now challenged in this revision petition, the tenant is liable to pay under Section 5 of the said Act...
Tag this Judgment!Cether Vessels Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC94; 1993LC93(Madras); 1992(60)ELT214(Mad)
ORDER1. The reason for filing W.P. No. 15015 of 1991 is that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 20-03-1991 to show why a duty of Rs. 1,65,25,983-97 should not be demanded from it by invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 apart from the penalty to be imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner is a manufacturer of boiler components and has entered into contracts with purchasers of boilers at site. One type of such boilers is Cether Fluidix Boiler which uses fluid bed combustion system for converting water into steam. The petitioner has classified the same in 1985-'86 claiming exemption from the duty under Notification 120 of 1981 dated 16-05-1981 as amended by Notification 209 of 1982 dated 09-08-1982. Subsequently, it claimed exemption under another Notification 205 of 1988 dated 25-05-1988. On investigation, it was found out that the petitioner was not...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Govindarajan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ469
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In these two writ appeals, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8507 and 8508 of 1987 are the appellants. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in these two writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. The petitioners are aggrieved over the acquisition proceedings prosecuted under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The proceedings under the Act have come to the stage of passing of awards. However, the petitioners wanted to quash the very notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge did not countenance the case of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions subject to a direction that in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.8507 of 1987 the reference under Section 31 of the Act shall be withdrawn, because the petitioner therein alone is entitled to the compensation amount. These two writ appeals are directed against th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Pappammal and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ450
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed against the orders of the Government refusing to restore the lands of the petitioners from acquisition proceedings of the Housing Board.2. Certain lands were acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and two bits of lands are the subject matter of these writ petitions, one is in S.No.2/1 A and another in S.No.2/10 etc. in Alagapuram Village, Salem District.3. Both the petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings itself and failed. The petitioner in W.P.No.6078 of 1991 challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 3675 of 1981 and it was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 19.1.1984 and the said order was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 1985 on 30.9.1985. A special leave petition met with the same fate and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9.11.1987.4. The petitioners in W.P. No. 1508 of 1991 filed W.P. No. 7490 of 1982 and it was dismissed by S. Ramalingam, J. on ...
Tag this Judgment!O.N.A. Nagamani Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Shanmugham Finance Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ603
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal against the decree for a sum of Rs. 6,629.45 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.9.1974 to the date of plaint and at 6 per cent per annum subsequently till realisation. The suit by the respondent-plaintiff is no doubt for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,882.50 due under a chit fund transaction.2. Pending appeal, the appellant died and appellants 2 to 8 have been brought on record as his legal representatives.3. The averments found in the plaint are briefly as follows: The plaintiff conducted chits under various denominations. The defendant became a subscriber in a chit to the value of Rs. 10,000 payable in 20 monthly instalments of Rs. 500 each, commencing from 1.7.1974. The defendant was the successful bidder in the second instalment of the chit on 1.8.1974 and he received the entire chit consideration of Rs. 10,800, deducting the bid amount of Rs. 2,650. Subsequently the defendant was irregular i...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Pocker Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3057
ORDER1. This revision has been filed by the owner of a lorry, in which his Driver was found on 15-8-1983 at 4 p.m. transporting 37 logs of Silver Oak in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act 1882 and the Timber Transit Rules 1968 framed thereunder, and is directed against the order of confiscation of the vehicle passed by the trial Court under S. 43 of the Act, confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 2. Accused Panneerselvam was found by P.W. 1 the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Coonoor, to be transporting in lorry bearing registration No. TNE-3525 belonging to the petitioner herein, 37 logs of Silver Oak in the Kilakombai Kawal - Coonoor road. The accused was tried for offences under S. 35-A read with S. 35-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3(1) and Rule 4.B of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan and Other Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3221
ORDER1. Both these revisions arise out of the same case and are hence disposed of together. Crl. R.C. 232/87 is by A. 1 in CC. 10291/82 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras challenging his conviction for an offence under S. 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. Crl. R.C. 343/87 is by A. 3 in the same case and in directed against the order of confiscation of his lorry TMQ 1519 used for the commission of the above offence, the order being confirmed in appeal. 2. Both the petitioners along with A. 2 were tried for the above offence on the allegation that they entered into a conspiracy, between 24-11-1981 and 25-11-1981, to illicitly transport liquor, in violation of the above Act, in TMQ 1519 from Annanagar, Madras to Avadi and pursuant to the conspiracy on 25-11-1981 at 4.00 p.m. A.1 and A.2 were found transporting 5312 bottles of b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »