Chennai Court January 1992 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.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Damayanthi Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR195(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ373
Abdul Hadi J.1. This appeal by the defendant is against the decree for Rs. 16,800 with interest at six per cent, per annum from March 18, 1978, granted by the trial court in O. S. No. 3423 of 1978 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said sum is claimed by the plaintiff as arrears of rent for the period ending with August 31, 1977, at the rate of Rs. 4,200 per year. 2. The main defence in the suit is that, in view of the statutory attachment by the estate duty authority under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, of the rents payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the suit is not maintainable. The said issue alone is agitated in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court negatived the said contention of the defendant and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal. 3. The few facts necessary for dealing with the abovesaid issue may be stated as follows : The plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Sambandam under exhibit A-3 sale deed date...
Winfred Dhanraj Samuel Vs. Betsy Ratnakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC219; (1992)IIMLJ106
Lakshamanan, J.1. Winfred Dhanraj Samuel, plaintiff in O.M.S No. 21 of 1988 is the petitioner in Application Nos. 4108 and 4109 of 1991. Application No. 4108 of 1991 has been filed by him to review my order. dated 7-5-1991 in the main O.M.S.2. His case is that the respondent's mental condition is idiocy within the meaning of Medical Jurisprudence. Her mental faculties, her behaviour as a child, poor memory and absence of will power, emotions, or initiative of any kind, etc., would go to show that she had always been an idiot both before and during the time of marriage and continued to be so thereafter. His consent for the marriage was obtained by the suppression of this material fact. He is therefore entitled to a decree declaring his marriage with respondent as null and void.3. This Court, while dismissing the petition passed an order on 7-5-1991 as under :'In the result, the suit is dismissed. I direct the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per month to t...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. G.M. Electrical Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC294
Thangamani, J.1. Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,02,900/- with interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.2. The plaint averments are as follows:- On or about 14.12.1981 defendant G.M. Electrical works placed an order with M/s. Semikron International, Nurnberg, Federal Republic of Germany for the import of 1,000 pieces of Schottky Diodes for home consumption. The cargo in question was to be carried by air from Nurnberg to Madras. As per the contract 600 pieces of Diodes were to be supplied from ready stock and the balance of 400 pieces at a later date. At the request of the defendant the plaintiff insured the goods imported and issued two Marine policies dated 18.12.1981 and 21.12.1981 for 600 pieces and 400 pieces respectively. The terms and conditions of both the policies were identical. The policies covered all the risks of physical loss or damage from warehouse to warehouse and as per Institute (Air) Clause and War and S.R.C.C. Though as per t...
Baliah Nadar and anr. Vs. Rayappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ60
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants in both the appeals. One suit is for declaration that plaintiff and second defendant are absolute owners of the suit property. The other suit is for partition and separate possession of one third share of the plaintiff. The first defendant in the suit who is the brother of the plaintiff claimed one-third share in all the properties. Defendants 3 and 4 contested the claim of the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 and 2. The trial court has found that the plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in Door No. 7, which is the property in O.S. No. 82 of 1976 out of which S.A. No. 2262 of 1981 arises. In the other suit, the trial court granted a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff.2. On appeal, the Principal subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, modified the decree in O.S. No. 82 of 976 and granted one third share to the plaintiff in the suit property. In the other appeal, the learned subordinate Judge has granted a decree, declaring that ...
Abdullah Glue Company, Represented by Managing Partner, O.S. Abdul Ras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ358
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the first respondent to grant exemption under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of the land in S.No.95/2, Pammal Village, within the Madras Urban Agglomeration Category I in the possession of the petitioner, after calling for the records connected with the letter (Ms) No. 1382, dated 23.8.1989 of the first respondent and quash the same.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows: One Sakhibai Khiyaram became the owner of 60 grounds of land in S.No.95/2, Pammal Village by a settlement deed dated 26.5.1969. The petitioner-firm was a tenant in respect of the said 60 grounds of land from 1957 under one A.Mohammed Ghouse. It is stated that there was an ancient shed on the land and all the superstructure housing the tan...
N.R. Abdul Azeez and ors. Vs. E. Sundaresa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ535
Thangamani, J.1. There is a dilapidated mosque like structure in S. No. 187 of Sheik Manyam in Vanagaram village, Saidapet, Chinglepet District. This building with the land appurtenant thereto measuring about 17,000 sq.ft. south of cart track, north of poramboke land, east of part of S. No. 187 and west of tank is the subject matter of the second appeal. The entire S. No. 187 before sub division comprised of an extent of 51 acres 17 cents. Ex.B-3 the Extract from the Registrar of Inams in the Village of Vanakaram discloses that this extent was originally granted to one Kayarunnissa as a personal Inam. Subsequently one Haji Mohammed Abdul Khadi Basha Sahib became the owner of this property. Under Ex.B-4 dated 23.9.1898 he settled this land in favour of his minor son Mohammed Habibulla Basha Sahib. The donee sold away the property to one Anniah Naidu under Ex.B-5 the registered sale deed dated 15.3.1917. Subsequently Anniah Naidu became insolvent and this property was sold by the Officia...
D. Veerasekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the D.S.P. 'Q' Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2168; (1992)IMLJ24
ORDER1. This petition coming on for orders on Friday, the 3rd and Monday the 6th days of January, 1992, upon perusing the petition and the orders of the Designated Court under T.A.D.A. Act and the records in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Ganapathy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. I. Subramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State/respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following order :- This petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Designated Court, u/S. 20(8) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987), refusing to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are : The petitioner is a practicing advocate of this Court with a standing of 11 years at the Bar. He has been appearing for a group called Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam of Sri Lanka (in short known as 'L....
Gnanambal Vs. Perumal Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ60
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The first respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 87 of 1968 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, and obtained a decree on 6.8.1969 against the petitioner and the second respondent. That was challenged in Appeal and it was confirmed on 16.11.1970 by the dismissal of the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 194 of 1972 for setting aside the decree and for restraining the decree-holder from executing the decree. Injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit stopping execution. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed against it in A.S. No. 34 of 1975 which was dismissed on 30.8.1978. The matter was brought to this Court in S.A. No. 531 of 1979 which was dismissed on 30.10.1983. Thus, the decree holder was not in a position to execute the decree from 6.8.1969 to 30.10.1985.2. Apart from that, the petitioner claimed benefits of the Debt Relief Acts 4 of 1938, 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramakrishna Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR67(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In these tax case references at the instance of the Revenue as well as the assessee, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : 2. Question referred at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the orders of the Income-tax Officer levying additional tax under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ?' 3. Question referred at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the Income-tax Officer's order under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75. 4. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested and for the assessment year 1972-73, the In...
Jayamohana Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC207
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent made on 28.4.1987. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in January, 1988 under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By order dated 9.3.88, the Tribunal directed payment of Rs.10,000/- on or before 29.4.1988 even though the petitioner pleaded inability to pay the amount. When the petitioner did not comply with the order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 23.6.1989 for not complying with the order under Section 35-F of the Act, as the appeal is not maintainable if the pre-deposit is not made as directed by the Tribunal. After paying the amount of Rs.7,500/- in 1990, the petitioner made an application for restoration of appeal and it was rejected. Against that order, the petitioner came before this Court in W.P. No. 14120/91 and this Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on 8.10.1991 on the ground that the Tribuna...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »