Chennai Court March 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.
The Church of Christ King, Represented by Father Paul Pinto, Parish an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ43
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff church is the appellant. The suit for declaration of title, consequential injunction and for mandatory injunction for removal of superstructure in the suit property has been dismissed.2. As the learned trial Judge has pointed out most of the facts in the case are admitted ones. The suit property is 29 cents of land in Survey No. 15/1 in Aranthangi Thottam village. Originally it belonged to an independent landholder of the village, Sulochanambalpuram Chathiram. This land and other lands of the land-holder was in the management of the District Board. On 7.9.1929 the District Board has given a lease of the said lands in favour of the plaintiff church. The plaintiff church has been periodically leasing out the lands to various tenants. Thus on 9.2.1946 the plaintiff church leased out a portion of the suit property to Krishnaswami Thevar under Ex.A-5 and then on 1.1.1962 it executed a lease deed in respect of another portion in favour of one Sathan under Ex.A-7. T...
T. Azeezur Rahman and Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC355(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The unsuccessful assessee is the appellant before us. The above tax case has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 8th June, 1981 made in T.A. No. 1217 of 1980 in common with certain other similar cases. 2. The petitioners are dealers in hides and skins. For the assessment year 1978-79, they filed A1 return declaring a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,23,96,766.15 and Rs. 6,50,297.60, respectively. After the examination of their accounts, the assessing authority proposed to determine the total turnover at Rs. 50,66,419.58 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 44,01,107.23 for the said assessment year. To the proposals, the assessee submitted its objections. It was the contention of the assessee that they purchased raw skins to the tune of Rs. 22,13,372.89 only for export and such raw skins were processed into dressed skins and exported in fulfilment of their foreign contracts and consequently and said turnover was eligible for exemptio...
V. Shanmugham and Another Vs. M/S. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., Bombay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad89; (1991)IMLJ448
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether the purchaser of a building pending disposal of the revision petition in this court against an eviction order is entitled to execute the decree for eviction notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser has not been brought on record before the final disposal of the revision petition.2. The petitioners herein have purchased the suit premises on 29-12-1984 under a registered sale deed from one Thajudeen. The original owner, namely, Thajudeen had filed R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1976, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Salem, for eviction of the tenant (respondents herein) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and obtained an order of eviction. The appeal filed against the order of eviction was also dismissed. The tenant further preferred a civil revision petition in this Court in C.R.P. No. 2076 of 1983. When the C.R.P. was pending, the petitioners herein purchased...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Oakes Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR931]; [1992]197ITR288(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. In these tax case references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for monetary value of unavailed leave salary of the employees should be allowed as a deduction (common to all the years). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that sum of Rs. 12,171 being the arrears of urban land tax, is an admissible expenditure for the assessment year 1973-74 even though the tax related to the earlier years 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,481, being the notice pay to workers voluntarily retired should be allowed as a deduction for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' (only in T.C. ...
N. Aruldhas Vs. K. Gopinathan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)IIMLJ337
ORDER1. The prized subscriber in a chit transaction is the petitioner herein.The respondent is the Foreman in the chit transaction.The petitioner, after a successful bid,executed two promissory notes on 20-7-1973 and 25-11-1973 respectively by way of security for regular payment of instalments.The chit was for a sum of Rs.4,000/- consisting of 40 instalments payable at Rs.100/- per month.The petitioner regularly paid up to 23rd instalment.He committed default from the 24th instalment which fell due on 23-12-1974.It is common ground that the chit terminated on 2-5-1976. The respondent issued a notice on 17-3-1978 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears,and finding no response,filed the suit O.S.No.112 of 1979, on the file of the court of the Additional District Munsif,Padmanabhapuram,for recovery of arrears from the 24th instalment onwards.The suit was resisted inter alia contending that it was barred by limitation.The trial Court,applying the ratio laid down by A Division Bench ...
V. Shanmugham and anr. Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ448
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is, whether the purchaser of a building pending disposal of the revision petition in this Court against an eviction order is entitled to execute the decree for eviction notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser has not been brought on record before the final disposal of the revision petition.2. The petitioners herein have purchased the suit premises on 29.12.1984 under a registered sale deed from one Thajudeen. The original owner, namely, Thajudeen had filed R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1976, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Salem, for eviction of the tenant (respondents herein) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and obtained an order of eviction. The appeal filed against the order of eviction was also dismissed. The tenant further preferred a civil revision petition in this Court in C.R.P. No. 2076 of 1983. When the C.R.P. was pending, the petitioners ...
Selvam Estates Represented by Its Partner Mrs. Mohanasundari Murugan V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ421
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. The above suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree:(a) declaring that the plaintiff firm is the absolute owner of the property described in the schedule;(b) granting a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the schedule mentioned property and for costs.2. Later the plaint was amended as per orders dated 19.12.1990, made in Application No. 6803 of 1990 seeking a relief for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 3 to 5 to demolish the superstructure put up on the plaint schedule property after filing the suit and directing defendants 3 to 5 to deliver the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. Originally suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2. Later defendants 3 to 6 were brought on record as party to the proceedings as per the order dated 19.11.1980, made in Application No. 5280 of 1990. The suit was presented in this Court on 9.2.1987 an...
M. Jayasudha and ors. Vs. the University of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ29
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition are the students who have been admitted by the second respondent/College to a course for the academic year 1990-91 and they have come to this Court by way of this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent/University refusing to grant provisional affiliation to the second respondent/college for the academic year 1990-91.2. The second respondent/College was informed by the University as early as in May, 1990, that it should not admit any students for the academic year 1990-91 without getting provisional affiliation from the University. Inspite of that, the second respondent/College admitted the students for the academic year 1990-91 and the petitioners herein are some of those who were so admitted. When the College issued a notification for admission, a notice was issued by the University to the second respondent/College on 28.6.1990 requesting the second respondent to state how it has issued the admission ...
Kalyaniammal Vs. Punjab National Bank by Its Manager, Tirunelveli Town ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad176; (1991)IIMLJ342
1. The appeal is against theorder in 1. A. No. 302 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The application before the Court below was one under 0. XXI, R. 58, read with O. XXXVIII, R. 8, Civil P.C. The prayer was to release the scheduled property From attachment made by the Court in I.A. No. 220 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the husband of respondent 2, and father of respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of amounts due to the 1st respondent. Pending suit, an attachment was sought with reference to the property, which is now in question, by the 1st respondent.2. The case of the appellant is that the property in question was sold to her on 12-7-1985 for valuable consideration of Rs.45,000/- by the 2nd respondent in the Court below under a registered sale deed. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent in the Court below, who died during the pendency of procee...
Paul Pandi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1394
Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner herein has been detained under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). It is stated in the grounds of detention that he has been involved in Sivakasi East P.S. Cr. No. 288 of 1990 under sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which case he was arrested on 27-6-1990, sent for remand and later released on bail on 25-7-1990. This case related to an occurrence dated 20-6-1990 committed at about 20.00 hours at Pitchandi Street at Sivakasi in which the petitioner along with 21 others formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused a stab injury to one Pandiyarajan on the back of his left with a broken soda bottle, it is said, on account of previous enmity. In yet another case, Sivakasi Town P.S. Cr. No. 406 of 1990, he was arrested on 27-6-1990 and released...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »