Chennai Court April 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.
R. Parthasarathy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ257
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that the Presidential Proclamation dated 2.4.1992 under Article 356 of the Constitution of India relating to the Stale of Nagaland is null and void, unconstitutional and ultra vires. The petitioner has made available the xerox copy of a news item containing the gist of the Presidential Proclamation. By virtue of the Presidential Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, the Administration of the State of Nagaland was brought under the President's rule. Another xerox copy of a news item made available by the petitioner contains the details of advice which appears to have been tendered to the President of India, who issued the proclamation under Article 356 in relation to the State of Nagaland; the sum and substance of it appears to be that the very ground relied upon by the Governor to dissolve the Assembly shows that it was not possible to carry on the adminis...
Jupitor Traders and ors. Vs. A.T. Sankar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ506
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The respondents herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 3336 of 1984 for fixation of fair rent. In the original petition, M/s. Jupitor Traders, a partnership firm was the only respondent. The Rent Controller by order dated 27.2.1986 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,333 per mensem. Both parties were aggrieved by that order. The tenant filed R.C.A. No. 300 of 1986 and the landlords filed R.C.A. No. 371 of 1986 and when the appeals were pending, the landlords filed an application in M.P. No. 1255 of 1986 for impleading the partners of M/s. Jupitor Traders as parties to the appeal. That application was made because of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand : [1985]1SCR268 , in which the Apex Court held that an application for eviction would not be maintainable against a firm in the firm's name, as the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control order of the Central Provinces. The Supreme Court however had pointed out i...
Janardhana Raju and Others Vs. Thailammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad176
This appeal has come before me on remand from the Supreme Court of India. The facts relevant are shortly as follows:--2. The mother of the appellants filed O. S. 1472 of 1976 for recovery of possession fromIrusappa Asari who was a tenant with respect to the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the lease was taken on 6-5-1957. It was alleged that the tenant had encroached on an adjacent land which was not the subject matter of the lease. Pending the suit, the mother of the appellants died and the appellants were brought on record as her legal representatives.3. The defendant contested the suit claiming that he was a tenant from January, 1955 with reference to a larger property than what was set out by the plaintiffs. He claimed the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act are filed a petition under S. 9 of the Act. It was contended that the suit was not maintainble as there was no notice under S. 11 of the Act.4. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the pla...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.T. Ramalingam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Mad)225; [1993]201ITR839(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax case reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred to this court, for its opinion, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72, 1966-67 to 1970-71, 1966-67 to 1970-71 and 1966-67 to 1970-71, respectively, with reference to three assessees : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has to be granted to the assessees for the assessment year 1971-72/1966-67 to 1970-71/1966-67 to 1970-71/1966-67 to 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessees are three brothers and they, along with their father, owned and enjoyed a house property. In the course of the proceedings for assessment to wealth-tax, in respect of the assessment years set out earlier, each one of the assessees claimed exemption under...
indrol Lubricants and Specialities Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT434(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in A. No. 899/80 and set aside the order dated 23-1-1984, quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 2,13,107.13 being the amount said to have been paid under a mistake by the petitioner to the respondents as if it was excise duty. 2. Though the petitioner has impleaded the Union of India as the first respondent the order that is sought to be quashed as the offending order is that of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, dated 23-1-1984. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the same could not be sustained having regard to Rule 11 read with Rule 173(J) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. I consider it unnecessary to proceed further into the merits of the contention having regard to certain subsequent developments and the coming into force of the Central Excises...
B. Rajammal Ammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ549
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The second petitioner in W.P. No. 8549 of 1989 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the said writ petition arc the respondents in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.2. The deceased first petitioner K. Balu Chettiar was the successful bidder in the auction for the sale of the right to do cardamom cultivation and was granted lease of forest lands measuring 16.25 acres in Pambar undeveloped Reserve forest of Bodinaickanur Range (Now Kodaikanal range), with effect from 5.7.1964 for a period of 25 years. The said lease by efflux of time came to an end on 4.7.1989. On 1.2.1989 the said Balu Chettiar submitted an application for renewal of the lease for a further term, treating the renewal as a fresh lease in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979. The second respondent by the order dated 16.5.1989, declined ...
Athiammal and anr. Vs. Kadhar Sheriff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC72
Ratnam, J.1. The view taken by the Tribunal regarding the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal 190 (2) CriLJ 135 It is seen from that decision that though the policy may be taken during any part of the day, the policy becomes effective and operative from the commencement of that day. In that view, the Tribunal fell into an error in passing an interim award only against the appellants herein. The award so passed cannot, therefore, be sustained. However, it is really unnecessary to pass any interim award against the fifth respondent Insurance Company at this stage, as it is not disputed that the main M.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1987 is still pending adjudication. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to take up that claim petition and dispose it of expeditiously, on or before 30.9.1992 and report such disposal to this Court, as the accident had taken place as far back as 20.10.1986....
R. Velammal Vs. R. Daivasigamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad100
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.The defendant is the appellant herein. The first plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the second plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the co-brother of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed O.S. 118 of 1983 for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 13-7-1980. The case of the plaintiffs is as under:-- The defendant agreed to sell her property to the plaintiffs under a sale agreement dated 13-7-1980 for a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/-. On the date of the execution of the sale agreement a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by way of advance by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Among the plaintiffs the first plaintiff agreed to purchase half of the suit properly and plaintiffs 2 and 3 agreed to purchase 1/4th share each in the suit property. In pursuance of the above said agreement possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs. According to the sale agreement dated 13-7-1980 the sale transaction should be completed within one year from the date of the agreeme...
Arjunan and Others Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3113
Maruthamuthu, J.1. Appellants 1 to 4 in C.A. No. 739 of 1985 who were A-1 to A-4 in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, stood charged for six offences, all relating to one and the same occurrence that took place on 12-8-1984 at about 5.00 a.m. at Poongulam Mudakku near the hill of Dongumalai, within the limits of Veppankuppam police station. The appellants may be referred to as accused a arrayed in the trial Court. The first charge was under section 302 IPC against A-1 on the allegation that he committed the murder of one Murugesan by cutting him with a vettukathi. The second charge was under section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against A-2 to A-4 on the allegation that they, along with A-1 and Prakasam, the juvenile accused in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1985, were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of Murugesan and that in furtherance thereof, A-1 committed the murder of Murugesan. The third cha...
Kumari A.B. Shanthi (Alias) Vennira Adai Nirmala Vs. Assistant Directo ... Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR330(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in E.O.CC. No. 207 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner arraying her as accused under section 276DD of Income-tax Act, 1961, for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : 3. The accused is a cine actress. The All India Anna D. M. K. Party, Madras, granted a loan of Rs. 4,65,000 to the accused as per the entry made in their ledger folio on April 17, 1986. The said loan amount was received by the accused on April 18, 1986. She has admitted the same in her sworn statement given before the Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) Madras - 600 034, on April 23, 1986. As per section 269SS of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »