Chennai Court August 1991 Judgments
T.S. Arumugham Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas814(Mad); (1992)IILLJ210Mad
Govindasamy J.1. Lakshmi Vilas Bank, the first respondent herein is a company, incorporated under the Indian Companions Act on November 3, 1926. The affairs of the company are entrusted with the board of directors of the company. The articles of association of the said bank, at the time of incorporation, provided that the board of directors of the said bank shall consist of not less than seven and not more than eleven members. The first respondent-bank is also governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Sub-section (2) of section 10A of the Act provides that not less than fifty-one per cent. of the total numbers of the board of directors of a banking company shall consist of persons, who - (a) shall have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of one or more of the following matters, viz., (i) accountancy (ii) agriculture and rural economy (iii) banking (iv) co-operation (v) economics (vi) finance (vii) l...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Santhosham Vs. V. Raghavan, Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: [1994]206ITR605(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in EO.C.C. Nos. 71 to 76 of 1989 has filed these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid cases and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner arraying him as the accused in EO.C.C. No. 71 of 1989 under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The allegations in it are as follows : The complaint is in respect of the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1975-76. The valuation date was March 31, 1975. The accused has been assessed to wealth-tax from the assessment year 1969-70 onwards. For the assessment year 1975-76, the return of wealth under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was due on July 31, 1975. The accused failed to file his return of wealth in due time. Notice was issued under section 17A of the Wealth-tax Act on March 20, 1982, calling upon the accused to file the return of wealth within 35 days of the service of notice. Notice was served on...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sarojini (Died) and ors. Vs. the Nungambakkam Saswatha Dhanarakshak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ627
Srinivasan, J.1. Several interesting questions of law were argued by learned Counsel for the appellants at length. But, unfortunately, most of them do not arise for consideration in this case on the facts of the case.2. The facts are shortly these: The plaintiff who died pending the second appeal, executed a mortgage of the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant on 28.10.1963 for a sum of Rs. 25,000. The plaintiff executed a promissory note in favour of the 4th defendant who filed a suit thereon and in execution of the decree passed in that suit, purchased the equity of redemption on 23.1.1969. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a second mortgage in favour of the second defendant on 20.5.1971 for a sum of Rs. 10,000. The plaintiff executed the third mortgage in favour of the third defendant on 20.12.1971 for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The first defendant who has been repeatedly demanding the amount due from the plaintiff under the first mortgage brought the property to sale in exercise ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Batcha Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3050
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision is by the accused in C.C. 85/84 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, challenging his conviction for an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 year, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in C.A. 210/85. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was that on 13-10-1983 at 4.30 p.m. he was in possession of 5 AC chairs marked as M.O. 2 series kept in M.O. 3 gunny bag and tied to the carrier of M.O. 1 cycle. 3. The prosecution is briefly as follows :- P.W. 1, the Inspector along with P.W. 4 the Goods Yard Sub-Inspector and one Natarajan P.W. 2 were coming along the Mudukkupatti overbridge, when they saw the petitioner coming pushing M.O. 1 bicycle, in the carrier of which, a gunny bag with its contents was tied P.W. 1 stopped the petitioner and opened the gunny bag and found ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Gambro NexIn (India) Medical Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC110
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The respondents in W.P. 1431 of 1990 are the appellants in this writ appeal. The petitioner in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner imported by air 120 packages of Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories from Sweden. The petitioner availed of the exemption notification in respect of this import. The petitioner wanted to export the items to a purchaser in Moscow. However, there was a decline on the part of the respondents to make the necessary endorsement in the shipping bill so as to enable the petitioner to do the export. This obliged the petitioner to come before this Court by way of the writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the export of the items by making the necessary endorsement in the shipping bill. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition, the responden...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ555
Mishra, J.1. A question as to whether Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is unconstitutional has been brought before this Court under Section 13 of the C.P.C since it was perceived as a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.2. The Tamil Nadu Handloom. Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., represented by its Chief Marketing Officer, has instituted the suit for the reliefs inter alia to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to it and to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000 as damages for use and occupation of the suit property from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. In the suit, Messrs. Glamour Saree Museum, the defendant is described as partnership firm carrying on business at 843,Mount Road Madras-2.The plaintiff Society claimed that it is the owner of the suit property and the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the northern portion of the ground floor of the said premises on a monthly rent of R...
Tag this Judgment!T. Devi and 12 Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ59Mad
ORDERMishra, J. 1. We dismiss this appeal in limine because we fine no error committed by the learned single Judge in upholding the impugned amendment of the service regulation of the respondent/Housing Board. How and why the amendment with retrospective effect has been made is available in detail in the impugned judgment. To note, however, one of he essential facts, we may state that the respondent/Board after its constitution, adopted a resolution on March 20, 1963 laying down a certain minimum qualification for recruitment in its clerical service followed by another resolution dated December 8, 1965 under which the qualification of being a graduate was reduced to S.S.L.C. The Act, however, required under S. 161(3) thereof approval of the Service Regulations by the State Government. The Board accordingly forwarded its Service Regulation Resolution dated March 20, 1963 to the State Government for approval as well as its resolution dated December 8, 1965. The Government accorded its ap...
Tag this Judgment!A. Vembuli Naicker Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ26
ORDERGovindasami, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of lands of an extent of Order 12 acres comprised in S. No. 14/1B, Order 55 acres comprised in S.No.14/B, Order 56 acres comprised in S. No.14/3B, Order 50 acres comprised in S. No. 14/4B, 0.06 acres comprised in S. No. 84/2,0.33 acres comprised in S.No.85/1, 0.30 acres comprised in S. No. 85/2, 0.92 acres comprised in S.No.86/1, 0.67 acres comprised in S.No.86/2, 0.72 acres comprised in S. No. 87/2 in all measuring 4 acres and 73 cents situate in Vanagaram village, Village No. 79, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District. The petitioner has utilised the lands for the purpose of manufacturing bricks in the name and style of 'Mahavishnu Brick Works' under I.S.I.No.18/03/0604/PMT SSI, dated 14.10.1980.2. The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of formation of Maduravoyal Neighbourhood scheme and issued notification und...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Chakkarapany Chetty and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Yenarkay Ravindran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ459
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant on a petition filed by the landlord for his own use and occupation of the premises underSection 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The landlord (respondent herein) has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that he is manufacturing safety matches in Sivakasi and he is doing business in safety matches throughout India and for his business in Tirunelveli he requires his petition premises for using it as a godown for storing safety matches.3. The petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the premises is not required by the landlord and his claim that he requires it for using it as a godown for storing safety matches is not bona fide and this claim of the landlord is a false one intended for the only purpose of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundararajan Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC488
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. These proceedings arise out of M.C. 102/84 filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, seeking maintenance from the petitioner.2. The claim was made on the averment that the first respondent was married to the petitioner on 26-3-80, they lived together in the house of the petitioner at Ranipet for three months, that in Adi 1980 she went to her elder sister Ranganayaki's house at Chidambaram, where, since she became fatherless even as a child, she had been brought up by her elder sister and her husband Dhamodharan, who had arranged and conducted her marriage, that the petitioner showed no interest in marital life and did not take her back, that the petitioner was then in Cuddaiore, where the first respondent lived with him for six months during which period, the second respondent was conceived, that she came to her elder sister's house for delivery and the second respondent was born ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »