Chennai Court February 1992 Judgments
Sultan Abdul Khader Vs. the Corporation of Madras Represented by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ63
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in this appeal against the decree in favour of the respondent/Corporation of Madras, in the latter's suit O.S. No. 5943 of 1969, on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of property tax amounting to the tune of Rs. 10,849 for the period from second half of 1964-65 to second half of 1968-69 (both inclusive). The suit amount admittedly relates to enhanced tax levied under Section 137-B of the Madras City Municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919. No doubt the defendant has purchased the suit property only on 25.10.1966 and one contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that his vendor had not been impleaded in the suit. But under the Act even the purchaser will be liable for the property tax on the property purchased by him, even with reference to the period prior to his purchase.2. But the substantial contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even assuming the procedure prescribed und...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Christian College, Represented by Its Secretary, Rev. Dr. Franc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ544
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, Actg. C.J.1. The prayer in the writ petition runs as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) and Private Colleges (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1982 (48 of 1982) as ultra vires and unconstitutional in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, and pass such further or other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice. The petitioner is indisputably a minority institution. Though the prayer is couched in wide terms, it was made clear to the Court that only the provisions of Sections 14-A and 14-B of Chapter III-A introduced in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) and Private ...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Subramanian and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR506(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. All these petitions are disposed of together by a common order since the points raised are identical and the petitioners are brothers. 2. All these petitions have been preferred under section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, to stay all further proceedings in E.O.C.C. Nos. 159 of 1989, 160 of 1989, 161 of 1989, 167 of 1989 and 168 of 1989 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore, Madras. Interim stay was ordered in all these petitions on October 25, 1989. 3. The only ground on which stay was asked for and obtained in all the pending prosecutions was that the respective petitioners had filed applications before the Settlement Commission and, in spite of objections by the Income-tax Commissioner, the Settlement Commission had admitted all the applications preferred by the petitioners. The Settlement Commission has ultimately passed order in favour of the petitioners and hence continuation of these prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!T. Amudha and Others Vs. Members, Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Mad)243; [1993]202ITR525(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the appropriate authority rejecting an application of the vendors of the petitioners filed under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the statement filed by the vendors of the petitioners was premature, invalid and not actionable for certain reasons. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on October 23, 1991. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale on August 9, 1989, with one Nagarathina Mudaliar and respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 for purchase of the property situate at No. 21, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Madras 34, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,55,43,000. This property was acquired by the said Nagarathina Mudaliar and others, it is said, in a partition of a joint family property in 1954. Since the value of the property exceeded a sum of rupees ten lakhs, the vendors and the petitioners filed before the first respondent Form No. 37-I under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundaraswamigal Medical Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ307
ORDERK.S. Bakthavastsalam, J.1. The above writ petition is preferred by the petitioner Trust challenging the order of Medical University (in short as 'the University') dated 16.8.1991 by which the application of the petitioner seeking affiliation to start the proposed Vinayaka Mission Kirupananda Variyar Medical College at Salem for the acadamic year 1991-92 has been rejected.2. On an earlier occasion, Govindasamy, J. in W.M.P. No. 20146 of 1991 in this writ petition by order dated 22.10.1991 directed the first respondent University to grant provisional affiliation subject to the petitioner fulfilling all the requirements in a period of two years and pending further orders. Against the said order a writ appeal was filed in W.A. No. 1377 of 1991 and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Acting Chief Justice and Somasundaram, J. by order dated 26.11.1991 allowed the writ appeal setting aside the order of Govindasamy, J. in the above mentioned W.M.P. No. 20146 of 1991, dated 22...
Tag this Judgment!D. Pandi Naicker Vs. the Collector of Tirunelveli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ210
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in K.Dis.No.1184 of 1989, dated 3.8.1989 of the second respondent in Rc.No.4647/81/90, dated 10.3.1990 and of the third respondent in G.O.(D) No. 504, dated 6.5.1991 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the renewal application filed by the petitioner on merits.2. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition claims that he was the successful bidder and consequently he was granted a quarry lease for quarrying rough stones in Survey Nos. 270/1, 391/1 and 1090/1A of Vikramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District for faslis 1396, 1397 and 1398, that the lease expired on 30.6.1989, that the terms and conditions of the lease are governed by the confirmation Order as well as the lease deed executed by the parties, that before the expiry of the lease,...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kumaravel Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3236
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The two writ petitions were filed by one R. Kumaravelu who is the brother of the detenu R. Ramanathan in W.P. No. 16839 of 1991 and the Secretary of Sri Sundarsana Sabha of which the detenu G. Jothisankar in W.P. No. 16838 of 1991 is the Vice-President, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus quashing the orders of detention dated 27-11-1991 and set the abovesaid both the detenus at liberty. The impugned orders of detention were passed in both the cases by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District, the first respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him 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 No. 14 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to th...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Krishnamoorthy Vs. V. Kannammal and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ343
Mishra, J.1. V. Natarajan, the fourth respondent herein, was declared an insolvent. The Official Assignee, however, filed an application under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, read with Section 36 thereof, for a declaration that Natarajan, the insolvent, was entitled to one-sixth share in petition mentioned property, and that the same be vested with the Official Assignee consequent on the adjudication that he was insolvent. A learned single Judge of this Court summoned Natarajan his mother Kannammal (first respondent in O.S.A.No.53 of 1985) and other persons known or suspected to have been in possession of the petition mentioned property and inquired as to whether there was any interest or share of the insolvent in the said property. He found, however, that the Official Assignee could not establish that Natarajan had 1/6th share in- the property, and accordingly dismissed the application. Natarajan, in the meanwhile, also applied for discharge stating inter alia ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. Saradamani Kandappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ206
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed against an order of the learned District Judge, Chingleput, passed in I.A.No.30 of 1992 dated 14.1.1992 exercising his powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and ordering police protection in favour of the first respondent herein.2. The first respondent has filed three suits against the petitioners on the file of the original side of this Court and by a common judgment dated 29.11.1991 in C.S. Nos. 95 and 170 of 1984 and 302 of 1989, they were disposed of by Arumugham, J. All the suits filed by the first respondent were dismissed. Subsequent to the said dismissal of the suits, appeals were filed by the first respondent and they are pending on the Appellate side of this Court. The petitioners instituted a suit in O.S.No.2291 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee and also filed I.A.No.3163 of 1991 praying for interim injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the peti...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balasubramaniam and Others Vs. R. Muthu Krishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ242; 1992(40)ECC69
ORDER1. W.P. Nos. 519, 521 & 523 of 1992 : The prayer in the writ petitions is as follows : 'To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondents to forbear from taking any proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation of illegal exports of goods pending disposal of C.C. Nos. 231 and 232/92 filed by S. K. S. Hameed and S. Balasubramaniam respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1. Saidapet, Madras and pass such other further order or orders' 2. It came to the notice of the Customs Department-respondents that certain consignments have been exported by forgery of Customs documents viz., the shipping bills as though the same had been examined and passed by the competent officers of the Customs Department. An investigation was lodged into the matter on the basis of three consignments. In connection with such investigation summons were issued to the petitioner and to Mr. S. K. S. Hameed, petitione...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »