Chennai Court December 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.
Canara Bank, Aduthurai by Its Manager Vs. Asha Engineering and Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ513
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. An interesting question arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in E.P. No. 22 of 1984 in O.S. No. 143 of 1982.2. The question is, whether a money decree containing a charge over the suit properties (movables) of the due realisation of the amount decreed can be put into execution straightaway, or as decided by the learned Subordinate Judge, the decree cannot be executed as no preliminary decree had been passed giving time for the defendants.3. Briefly stated, the facts are the following: The petitioner herein obtained a decree against the respondents by filing a suit (O.S. No. 143 of 1982) on two promissory notes executed by the respondents, promising to repay the principal with interest at the rate stipulated therein. It appears, the respondents admitted the suit claim, and the court passed the decree on 4.11.1982 as follows:(1) That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff on or before 4.5.1983 the sum of Rs. 41,327-73 p. with...
Appropriate Authority, Government of India Vs. Naresh M. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Mad)433; [1993]200ITR773(Mad); (1992)IMLJ572
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order dated January 10, 1991, of Kanakraj J., in W.P. No. 16225 of 1990 (see : [1991]188ITR585(Mad) ). The said writ petition by the respondent herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated September 19, 1990, of the appellant herein, declining to pass an order under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in pursuance of the statement filed by the respondent herein and his transferors, under section 269UC of the Act, and to direct the appellant to pass an order granting a certificate of no objection under section 269UL of the Act for the sale of No. 94, Poes Garden Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86, to him. The said writ petition was allowed as prayed for and hence this writ appeal by the respondent in the writ petition. 2. The respondent initially purchased, by a sale deed dated January 19, 1990, an extent of 2831 sq. ft. with superstructure thereon (out of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Panjaliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR350(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. In this tax case petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the jewellery found at the time of the search cannot be added under section 69A of the Income-tax Act and deleting the entire addition of Rs. 91,950 ?' 2. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. On a consideration of the materials made available before it, the Tribunal had found that the assessee had given a substantial as well as an acceptable explanation with reference to the source of the jewellery found at the time of the search. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the assessee had satisfactorily explained that the jewellery belonged to her mother who died in 1979 and that they had been kept with the brother of the assessee till such time ...
Sri Gowriyamman Body Builders Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT479(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, Acting C.J.1. These writ appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants in these writ appeals. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in these writ appeals For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. The petitioners before this Court by way of the writ petitions, seeking for writs of declaration, declaring that the levy of excise duty and the compliance of the excise duty procedures and formalities so cited in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is illegal so far as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Single Judge examined the scope of the controversy in the writ petitions and ultimately opined in substance that it is a case of investigation into factual aspects and that investigation and adjudication thereof could be done on individual representations by the petiti...
P.L.V. Giri Vs. A. Subramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ75
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The appellant herein, namely, P.L.V. Giri is the judgment-debtor while respondents 1 and 2, namely, A. Subramaniam and Palaniappan are respectively the decree-holder and Court-auction purchaser.2. Pursuant to a mortgage decree passed in O.S. No. 145 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, for a sum of Rs. 1,44,045.85, execution had been levied in E.P. No. 95 of 1974 and despite best of efforts, substantial amounts could not be realised, notwithstanding the fact that the execution proceedings had been pending quite long and consequently, the Execution Petition was closed on 15.6.1980.3. However, second round of battle commenced by way of levy of execution by filing E.P. No. 246 of 1980 before Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, for realisation of Rs. 1,07, 069, by way of sale of the property, which is of the following description.All those parts and parcels of land situate in Nandambakkam village sub-registration district of Alanthur, registration...
Vasuki Ammal Vs. R. Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ363
Kanakaraj, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. She filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6326.62 being the arrears of salary payable to her. The facts leading to the said suit are as follows: The appellant/plaintiff was appointed as a Secondary Grade teacher on 7.10.1968. On 21.1.1971 her services were terminated. Against the said termination of service, the appellant filed an appeal to the District Educational Officer. By an order dated 1.6.1971, exhibited as A-l, the termination was set aside and there was a direction to reinstate the appellant in service. Against the said order of the District Educational Officer, the respondent School filed an appeal to the Chief Educational Officer. By an order dated 17.11.1971 (Ex.A-2) the order of the District Educational Officer dated 1.6.1971 was confirmed. Thereafter, there seems to have been some representations to the Director of School Education which were rejected on the ground that no further appeal was maintainable before...
The Appropriate Authority, Government of India, Income-tax Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ572
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order dated 10.1.1991 of Kanakaraj, J. in W.P. No. 16225 of 1990. The said writ petition by the respondent herein, is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 19.9.1990 of the appellant herein, declining to pass an order under Section 269-UL of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in pursuance of the statement filed by the respondent herein and his transferors, under Section 269-UC of the Act, and to direct the appellant to pass an order granting a certificate of no objection under Section 269-UL of the Act for the sale of No. 94, Poes Garden Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86 to him. The said writ petition was allowed as prayed for and hence this writ appeal by the respondent in the writ petition. 2. The respondent initially purchased, by sale deed dated 19.1.1990, an extent of 2831 sq.ft. with superstructure thereon, (out of the total extent of 8563 sq.ft. with superstructu...
Provisional Liquidator, Ramakrishna Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ797Mad
Nainar Sundaram, Ag. C.J. 1. Respondents 8, 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 3035 of 1988 are the appellants in this writ appeal. Petitioners 1 to 5 in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 5 in this writ appeal. Respondents 1, 4 and 7 and 9 and 11 in the writ petition are respondents 6 to 13 in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioners came to this Court by way of the writ petition, projecting the following prayer : For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the respondents culminated in Settlement Rc. No. 442 of 1988 dated March 7, 1988 signed by respondents 1 to 7 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit...
H. Belli Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ61
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents from letting out the property belonging to the first respondent and classified as Class 'A' in the G.L.A. Rules 1937 or dealing with it in any manner contrary to the Rules aforesaid.2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and interested in the welfare of the society and also is attempting to enforce the laws through legal machinery. Certain lands in the cantonment area are controlled and managed by the 4th respondent. In 1986 the respondents 2 and 3 sought the land for their use after the lease period in their favour is over. It seems initially the lands were classified as agricultural lands and class 'C' when it was leased out to persons who belonged to lower strata of the society. In 1986 the 4th respondent handed over the lands to the respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged in the affidavit that subseque...
Nallathambi Udayar (Died) and anr. Vs. Jayaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ352
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These two appeals are by the same appellants, A.S. No. 674 of 1985 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 90 of 1981 and the 1st appellant is the 1st defendant therein. In the said suit, the plaintiff Jayaraman, who is the 1st respondent in both the appeals herein claimed 1/4th share in the suit properties described in plaint schedules B, C, D & E on the ground that the said properties are joint family properties of the family of the 1st appellant and the said Jayaraman and two other sons Parvatha Udayar and Margasahayam, who are defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit.2. A.S. No. 1084 of 1987 arises out of O.S. No. 23 of 1982 filed by the 1st appellant against his abovesaid three sons. In the said suit, the 1st appellant claimed that the abovesaid properties belonged to him exclusively and on that footing he prayed for the relief of declaration and injunction with reference to those properties.3. According to the 1st appellant, the said properties are his own s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »