Chennai Court August 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.
T. Velusamy Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas24(Mad); (1991)IIMLJ504
Lakshmanan, J. 1. Before dealing with all the applications, it is necessary for me to briefly state the history of the case : This court, by order dated February 22, 1991, in Company Application No. 1561 of 1990 in Company petition No. 28 of 1986, directed the respondent herein (official liquidator) to invite sealed tenders for the sale of the properties belonging to the company in liquidation by publishing advertisements in newspapers. Accordingly, the official liquidator had published necessary advertisements in The Hindu, The Indian Express, Economic Times and Financial Express (all in English) and in Daily Thanthi (Tamil), calling for sealed tenders for the sale of the company's property. The advertisements were published in the said newspapers on March 9, 1991, and March 10, 1991. Pursuant to the advertisements in the newspapers, many parties evinced considerable interest in the purchase of the property of the company (the textile mill) in liquidation. About 115 persons obtained f...
thermofoam Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC65(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. In these two tax (revision) cases, a common question of law arises for consideration and, further, the assessee is also common. Only the assessment years are different. Hence, these two tax cases are disposed of by this common Order. 2. The assessment years in question are 1979-80 and 1981-82. The assessee is the petitioner in T.C. No. 9 of 1986 and respondent in T.C. No. 4 of 1987. The assessee manufactures and sells a product under the trade name 'Thermofoam'. For the two assessment years in question, this product was subjected to tax at single point rate under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act') overruling the objection of the assessee that the product will not fall under that entry, but will be liable to multi-point rate of tax. However, when the matters went before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), the Tribunal, presided over by two Members, for the assessment year...
The Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ514
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the challenge is of the constitutional vires of Sections 18-A and 18-B of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Private Schools Act; and Sections 14-A and 14-B of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Private Colleges Act, in so far as they are to be made applicable to the Educational Institutions established and Administered by the petitioners, who are minorities. These provisions are similar. Section 18-A of the Private Schools Act is in pan materia with Section 14-A of the Private Colleges Act. Section 18-A of the Private Schools Act corresponding to the Section 14-A of the Private Colleges Act speaks about appointment of Special Officer in certain cases. Section 18-B of the Private Schools Act, corresponding to Section 14-B of the Private Colleges Act, speaks about appeals to special tribunal as against orders under the pr...
K. Ramanuja Reddiar and anr. Vs. Kamalammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1991
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ336
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Revision Petition is by tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted from the lands in their possession, on a complaint by the landlord alleging that the tenants denied landlord's title to the lands by various acts. One of the acts relied upon by the landlord and accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was that when the landlord wanted to put up an electric motor to pump water from a well situated near the tenants' lands for the purpose of irrigating not only the tenants' lands but also the other lands of the landlord lying in the vicinity, the tenants refused to allow the landlord access to the land to put up a shed to house the motor and also bargained for reduction of rent as a condition of allowing the landlord to carry out his object. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that this conduct of the tenants amounted to wilful denial of the title of the landlord. Mr. Balasubramaniam for the petitioner contends that the tenants never denied that they were l...
Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. and ors. Vs. P.V. Subramania Ayyar (Since ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ1
Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Venugopal, J. under which he decided that a suit for declaration that under a certain deed of settlement any property right was conveyed in charity to any religious endowment, is maintainable notwithstanding the power under Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The trial court on the objection of the defendants/appellants held on the facts of the case that the plaintiffs adopted mother has no competence to execute the document, that the document executed by her was not binding on the plaintiff and that the suit was not hit by Section 108 of the Act or barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act as there has been no transfer of property under Ex.A-1. The appellants contended that the prayer in the plaint was for a declaration that the charity indicated in the settlement deed was not a charity of any public nature connected with any public religious endowment and such a declarato...
M. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. Top in Town Dry Cleaners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ167
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the landlord in rent control proceedings against the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 1196 of 1983, on the file of the Court of Small Causes (IV Judge), Madras, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, in R.C.O.P.No.3387 of 1982.2. Brief facts are the following:The petitioner is the owner of No. 70, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, is now in dispute. In the said premises, apart from the respondent, there are other tenants. The respondent was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 300 excluding electric charges. The relevant averments in the petition for eviction read as follows:The petitioner is carrying on business in Javuli and other business under the name and style of 'Mahadeva Iyer and Sons' at No. 12, Big Bazaar Street, Koothanallur Post, Thanjavur District. The business is flourishing well. The petitioner has decided to open a branch shop at Madras and is making arrangements for the same.The petitioner does not ...
Natesan Pillai Vs. Sethumani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ8
Bellie, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is as to the maintainability of the suit. The suit filed for declaration of plaintiffs title and for possession has been decreed and therefore the defendants have filed this appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff Sethumani Ammal is that she is the owner of the suit property. Plaintiffs father Rajanga Nadar who was managing the property had let it out to the defendant on a rent of Rs. 75 per mensem for one year. Even after the period of the lease the defendant continued in possession. He paid rent till November, 1978 and thereafter he stopped payment. The plaintiff issued notice calling upon the defendant to surrender possession but he would not do so raising false contentions. The plaintiff along with her father filed R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Chidambaram. In that proceedings the defendant denied the tenancy and he claimed right to the property under an alleged agreement of sale. In view ...
M. Chandran Vs. the Excise Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ170
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. The writ petitioner offered his bid at Rs. 8,010 in a public auction held on 28.5.1981 for disposal of Arrack Shop No. 11, Achamanaidukandigai, Arakkonam Taluk for the lease period 1981-82. The first respondent felt that the highest bid of Rs. 8,010 offered by the writ petitioner was inadequate, and held the reauction on 16.6.1981 in which on Thiru D. Lava had offered at Rs. l1,199.99 against the upset price of Rs. 15,000. In the meantime, the writ petitioner filed a W.P. No. 3678 of 1981 for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reauction notice dated 8.6.1981 in respect of the said Arrack Shop No. 11 situate in Arakonam Town, and also filed W.M.P. No. 5612 of 1981 wherein this Court granted interim stay. The above writ petition came to be disposed by this Court only on 30.7.1982. By reason of the interim order of this Court, the respondent could not dispose of the shops. In view of the fact that the respondent was not in a position to realize the lease amo...
Elgi Tyre and Tread Limited Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1994LC471(Madras); 1992(58)ELT413(Mad)
1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Sec. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. As against the orders of the 1st respondent in respect of classification under sub-heading 4016.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent along with an application under Sec. 35F of the Act. In that application filed under Section 35F of the Act, the petitioner has stated that it had made a claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,99,579.96 and it had obtained two refund orders to the tune of Rs. 3,38,75,548.60 payable by the respondents and under such circumstances, it is stated that the insistence of depositing a sum of Rs. 2,67,06,353.25 made by the 1st respondent as against the petitioner need not be given effect to as against the two refund orders obtained by the petitioner and the same is insisted upon the petitioner, it will cause undue hardship to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has requested to di...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Paul Sridharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ336
V. Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal at the instance of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court II), Chingleput, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in fastening liability on the part of the insurance company for the payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 33,600/- to the 1st respondent herein.2. There is no dispute now that in an accident that took place on 20.2.1980 involving the lorry bearing MDH 3003, the wife of the 1st respondent sustained injuries and later died. According to the 1st respondent, the lorry MDH 3003 was driven rashly and negligently and that has caused the accident to his wife, and in respect of that, he was entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent is stated to have purchased the vehicle from the owner, the 4th respondent, on 24.12.1979. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »