Chennai Court November 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.
A. Swaminathan and ors. Vs. the Official Trustee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ518
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These two original side appeals arise out of the order dated 11.7.1986 in Application No. 5441 of 1985 in C.S.No.88 of 1970 on the file of this Court. O.S.A. No. 6.211 of 1986 is by the applicants therein against the dismissal of the said application and O.S.A.No.262 of 1986 is by the 1st respondent-Official Trustee therein. This latter appeal is only against the disallowance of cost, while dismissing the abovesaid application (hereafter the term 'appellants' would refer to the appellants in O.S.A. No. 211 of 1986).2. The abovesaid application is for appropriate directions to apportion the suit trust properties between the private beneficiaries and public charities as per their respective shares.3. The suit trust was founded on 30.6.1956 by one Vavilla Subbamma by dedicating large properties inherited from her husband, which mainly included printing and publishing business, under a deed of trust of the same date. (Her husband died on 9.2.1956 issueless leaving onl...
Vaithianatha Asari Vs. Senthamil Selvi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad352; (1992)IMLJ424
ORDER1. The civil revision petition itself is taken up for disposal by consent of parties. It arises out of a petition for eviction filed by the respondent under Ss. 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. The petitioner contested the petition claiming that he had perfected title by adverse possession. He also contended that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide. The Rent Controller held against the contentions raised by the petitioner and passed an order of eviction. On appeal, the petitioner raised a new contention that he was entitled to fhe benefits of the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976) as he was holding the land as a Kudiyiruppudar. That contention was negatived by the Appellate Authority and the order of eviction was confirmed.3. In this Court, the same contentions which were put forward by the petitioner in the Courts below are repea...
K. Thangavel Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT383(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petitions have been filed for the issue of Writs of Declaration declaring that the levy of excise duty and the compliance of excise duty procedure and formalities cited in Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as illegal in respect of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners in their respective affidavit state that they are engaged in the business of building bodies of lorries, bus or tankers as per the requirements of their customers on the chassis supplied by such customers. It is the claim of the petitioners that the bodies in the motor vehicles built by them are exempted from the payment of excise duty, that the petitioners undertake body building and fabricating process and that the nature of their transaction would not constitute them as manufacturer of motor vehicles so as to warrant liability to pay excise duty. It is also contended that the petitioners make very little profit and that a declaration as prayed for should be issued. 3. The petitioners, apparently ...
Hastimal Vs. A. Arjunan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: I(1993)ACC235; 1992ACJ762; [1992(65)FLR266]; (1993)IILLJ55Mad; (1995)IIILLJ418Mad; (1992)IMLJ547
1. Bensali Chemicals, having its office at No. 26, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Madras-3, it is said, is a partnership firm, of which Mr. Hastimal is a partner. One A. Arjunan is said, are to be paid on daily basis and daily wages amounts to Rs. 12. However, the said employee, calculating the wages he earned in a month, fixed the same only at Rs. 288 thereby indicating that he had been provided with work for a period of 24 days in a month.2. On October 4, 1982, while he was engaged in loading nitric acid cans in a vehicle, an accident happened, in the sense the nitric acid in the cans spilling into his left eye, causing burning sensation. Despite treatment, he is said to have lost vision in his left eye. Consequently he filed an application seeking compensation for such loss of vision in his left eye in a sum of Rs. 7,560 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation I, Madras-6 (The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Madras (6).3. Though the firm stated in its counter that the said Ar...
Jayakanthi Rathinasabapathy Vs. G.S.D. Prasad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ565
ORDER1. The civil revision petitioner herein, namely, Jayakanthi Rathinasabapathy, was the first defendant.2. Respondents 1 and 2, namely, G.S.D. Prasad and Dayalan were respectively the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.643 of 1986 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, seeking specific performance and other relief's.4. The averments in the plaint disclosed that the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 5.12.1977 for the sale of the suit property for consideration of Rs. 94,400. On the date of the agreement, she received an advance of Rs. 21,000 agreeing to receive the balance in instalments, as and when the sales in part took place or if it takes place in bulk, otherwise also. As par the agreement, she agreed to execute the sale deed of the property in favour of the plaintiff or in other third party at his instance. The 2nd defendant is the Power of Attorney of the 1st defendant. When there was a b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›