Chennai Court October 1993 Judgments
K. Manickam Vs. R. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ198
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 54 of 1986, Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode, is the petitioner in the civil revision petition as well as the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal, directed against the order in I.A. No. 232 of 1992 in A.S. No. 193 of 1990, Additional District Judge's Court, Erode and in A.S. No. 193 of 1990, respectively. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties, in the course of this judgment, shall be according to their array in the suit. Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are as follows:On 7.4.1980, a house bearing door No. 259, Periyar Nagar, Erode Town, was allotted to the defendant by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, under a lease-cum-sale agreement on an initial deposit of Rs. 5,900 and the defendant agreed to pay the balance in monthly instalments, besides the service charges to the housing board. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 1.2.1983 with the plaintiff, whereunder it was agre...
Tag this Judgment!Women's Indian Association (Regd.) represented by Its Secretary, Parva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ406
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 5898 of 1986, First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, directed against the order of the lower appellate court holding that the petition in I.A. No. 4611 of 1987 filed by the respondent herein, claiming benefits under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is in time. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be necessary to refer briefly to the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings. On 25.8.1986, the respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 5898 of 1986 against the petitioner praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore electricity supply stated to have been cut off by the petitioner on 20.9.1985 without assigning any reason, on the footing that he is a tenant in respect of a piece of land measuring 1,350 sq.ft., on a monthly ground rent of Rs. 20 under the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniraja and ors. Vs. Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ404
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O.S. No. 124 of 1988, First Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Pondicherry, against the finding in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit relating to the preliminary issue on limitation. In the suit (O.S. No. 124 of 1988) instituted by the respondent, she had prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,429 together with interest, said to be due on two promissory notes dated 18.8.1982 and 25.3.1983 for Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 4,100 respectively. Prior to the institution of the suit, on 13.3.1988 by a notice the respondent made a demand for the repayment of the principal amounts together with interest and since that was not complied with, the suit was instituted on 30.3.1988. Amongst others, an objection was raised by the petitioners in the written statement to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. That issue was taken up as a preliminary issue and the court below following a...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Karani Vs. District Revenue Office-cum-appellate Authority, Debt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ430
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The 2nd respondent in this writ petition borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,750 from the petitioner in 1955 and executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent did not repay the amount. Therefore, the petitioner filed the suit O.S. No. 136 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Velangaiman for the sale of the hypotheca and realisation of the mortgage money. On 7.12.1972, a preliminary decree was passed and a final decree was passed on 12.12.1973. Thereafter the petitioner filed E.P. No. 326 of 1974 to bring the mortgaged property for sale. Thereafter the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (13 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as Act came into force. Taking advantage of the said enactment, the 2nd respondent filed an application before the concerned Special Tahsildar for a certificate of discharge of the mortgage debt on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. The Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief), enquired into the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ambal Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT517(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Jawahar Sundaram, Advocate for the Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan and Mr. P. Rajamanikam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, the court made the following order :- The accused in C.C. No. 5 of 1990, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing further proceedings in the said C.C. No. 5 of 1990. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioners and another for offences punishable under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Rules 9(2), 173Q and 210 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, for contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53 and 173F of the said Rules, on the following allegations : On 24-4-1987, the officers of the Headquarters Preventive Unit, Coimbatore, made a surprise visit to the accused-c...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Ammal Educational Trust Represented by Its Chair-person and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ163
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. All the above writ petitions have been filed by certain trusts and another person who had started Private Educational Institutions against the orders of the respondent/University, refusing to grant affiliation.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19248 of 1993 is an educational trust established for furthering the educational needs of the people in the rural areas. The said trust desired to establish an Engineering College at Mathur, Thiruvannamalai and acquired about 25 acres of land in Mathur, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner trust also made necessary arrangements for equipping the college with necessary facilities and took a premises in Thiruvannamalai to campus the first year course in Engineering for the academic year 1993-94. The petitioner seems to have made an application to the respondent for the grant of affiliation for the three year Degree Courses in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronics Engineering and Computer Science and Engineerin...
Tag this Judgment!Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Urban Land Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ390
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. M/s. Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd., Madras-86 (petitioner in all W.Ps.) is a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on, inter alia, business in the manufacture of Chemicals and Plastics such as polyvinyl chloride, compounds etc. The petitioner, it is said, for the purpose of manufacturing the above chemicals and plastics had large plants and machineries, storage facilities, equipments etc., in a large area of land, totally measuring 1,261 grounds and 1,030 sq.ft., in Mettur Dam, R.S., falling within Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The said area, it is said, had been divided into four blocks, namely, Block No. 61(2A), Block No. 61(2B), Block No. 62(1) and Block No. 64(1).2. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, (Tamil Nadu Act XII of 1966 - for short 'the Act') had been extended to Mettur Municipality by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Amendment Act, 1991 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1992), which must be deemed to have come into force ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangammal and ors. Vs. Avanashiappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ149
ORDER1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.2.1992 passed by a learned single Judge in C.M.P. Nos. 256 to 258 of 1993 filed in Second Appeal No. 1623 of l984. Those C.M.PS. have been filed for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased third appellant on record, on condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. The learned single Judge, having not been satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay, has rejected the petition filed for condoning the delay, and has consequently rejected the other two petitions filed for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased third appellant on record.2. The office has raised an objection that as no Letters Patent Appeal lies against the judgment and decree in the second appeal, as such the letters patent appeal preferred against the order refusing to set aside the abatement is not maintainable, in view of the provisions contained in Section 1OO-A read with Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Titanium Equipments and Anodes Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR566(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. The petitioner in these writ petitions is a company carrying on business, inter alia, in the manufacture, design and supply of titanium substrate insoluble anodes ('T. S. I. anodes', for short) since 1977. The petitioner claims the graphite anodes used extensively in the chlor-alkali industries, due to wear and tear, resulted in high power consumption and the T. S. I. anodes, as replacement for the graphite anodes, led to saving of power to a large extent. In February, 1982, according to the petitioner, the then finance Minister, while presenting the budget for the year 1982-83, stated that is was proposed to allow depreciation at 30 per cent. on devices and systems for energy saving, or for minimising environmental pollution or for conservation of natural resources and that the list of the qualifying items will be notified in due course. Based on this, the petitioner claimed that in view of the proposal made by the Finance Minister that energy saving devices would be entit...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR971(Mad)
Pratap Singh J.1. The accused in C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Madurai, has filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing all further proceedings in the said C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991. 2. The respondent has filed these three complaints against the petitioner for offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act and under sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of three assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. The allegations in those complaints are similar. They are briefly as follows : 3. The complainant is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. He is a public servant and this complaint is instituted as such. The complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accused is an individual engaged in tailoring business...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »