Chennai Court April 1993 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.
The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Steel Authority of India L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ415
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders made in REA. Nos. 255/91,2527 91 and 558/91 in R.E.P. Nos. 127/87 in L.AO.P. No. 9 of 1986, R.E.P. 165/87 in L.A.O.P. No. 10 of 1986 and R.E.P. 17/91 in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 respectively on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitions to implead it as a party in the execution proceedings.2. Short facts are:On reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act awards were passed in L.A.O.Ps. 9. and 10 of 1986 on 23.1.1987 and in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 on 9.7.1987. The claimants filed execution petitions to realise amounts awarded in those L.A.O.Ps. At that time, the revision petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid R.E.A. Nos. 255,252 and 558 of 1991 to implead it as a party. That was objected to by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed those petitions. ...
K. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Mad)396; [1994]206ITR183(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner prays for issue of a writ of declaration declaring that section 10(10) and section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as relating to any other gratuities received by the employees of statutory corporations and employees in the private sector, who are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as null and void as the said provisions are discriminatory in law and is in gross violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India and also declaring the implausible clarification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes about the meaning of the term 'salary' as used in section 10(10) and section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and their discordant interpretation as null and void and render justice with the apropos interpretation for the meaning of the term 'salary' to be used in the above sections of the Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioner retired from service in the Indian Airlines on superannuation at the close of work on January 31, 1991. He receiv...
K.M. Vijayan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: [1995]214ITR93(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, some petitioners seek a declaration that the Tamil Nadu Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is ultra vires the power of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature, and some others seek a declaration that article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, as amended by the Constitution (Sixtieth Amendment) Act, 1988, itself, is violative of the proviso to article 368 of the Constitution of India. Some others seek a declaration that certain particular provisions of the Act, are violative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The said Act, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature, came into force on April 1, 1992, and sub-section (1) of section 3 thereof, the charging section, enables every local authority in Tamil Nadu to levy tax on 'profession, trade, calling and employment'. 2. As per section 2(4) of the Act, 'local authority' means, -'(a) the Muni...
Sk.Ar.Sm. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rm. Murugappa Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ222
Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (Application No. 3299 of 1985) in CS. No. 379 of 1985 to stay the proceedings in C.S. No. 379 of 1985, a suit for winding up a partnership business and for accounts as well as division of assets etc.2. There as no dispute before us that the partnership was created under an agreement dated 13.4.1973 and was one at will of which the first defendant/ appellant was the managing partner. The plaintiff/ respondent issued a notice on 22.5.1984 demanding rendition of account. The first defendant/ appellant sent a reply to the said notice on 7.6.1984, after which, however, the plaintiff/respondent conveyed by notice dated 13.5.1985 his intention to dissolve the partnership firm and filed the suit for the above reliefs. The defendants, on appearance, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act stating that under Clause 17 of the partnership agreement dated 13.4.1973 any ...
K.V. Duraisamy and anr. Vs. D. Perumalsamy (Minor) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ613
Thangamani, J.1. Appellants K.V. Duraisamy and Pemmakkal in A.S. No. 815 of 1981 are brother and sister. The first item of the subject matter of the appeal is the land measuring 5.70 acres in Survey No. 68 of Pasur village. This land was purchased jointly by their mother Gengemmal and Pemmakkal under Ex.B-1 the sale deed dated 18.11.1957. In the family partition between first appellant Duraisamy and his brother Rangasamy under Ex.B-3 dated 28.10.1966 a moiety of this land was allotted to the share of the first appellant. The remaining half was settled in his favour by sister Pemmakkal under Ex.B-4 dated 29.10.1966. Respondents who are the minor sons of first appellant Duraisamy represented by their mother Rukkammal instituted O.S. No. 98 of 1977 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd shares in this item as well as items 2 and 3 described in the plaint. While the third item is movables, the second item comprises of an ...
Manoj Kumar Sonthalia Vs. Nariman Point Building Service and Trading P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas559(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The above applications were filed by the plaintiff in the suit for various reliefs pending disposal of the suit. 2. The short facts are as follows : The plaintiff/applicant filed C.S. No. 1246 of 1992 against the first defendant/first respondent company (in short 'NPBS'), four other newspaper companies and six other persons. The suit is primarily concerned with the validity of a board meeting of the second defendant/Indian Express, Bombay Limited, Bombay, held on January 23, 1991, and certain resolutions for appointing additional directors. The plaintiff/applicant also prays for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of various acts committed by the sixth defendant/sixth respondent along with other directors, particularly Nusli Wadia (seventh defendant) and Vane Srinivasan (eighth defendant). Many interlocutory applications have been filed by the plaintiff/applicant in this suit. 3. The plaintiff/applicant had also filed C.S. No. 1247 of 1992 against NPB...
Samuvelraj Alias N.S. Raj Vs. Y. Jebamony
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ177
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P. No. 12 of 1991 in O.S. No. 69 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in which learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the claim of the revision petitioner that the property attached and brought for sale was not liable for attachment.2. Short facts are: The respondent herein had filed a suit and got a decree for money. In execution of the decree, he brought the property belonging to the revision petitioner for sale. Revision petitioner objected to the attachment and sale proceedings on the ground that the property sought to be sold is his house and appurtenant land, that he is an agriculturist and hence the property is exempt from attachment under Section 60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. His objection was resisted by the decree holder/respondent. Learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the objection raised by the revision petitioner, holding that the property attached in this exe...
K. Vimala Devi and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kasthuri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ243
Mishra, J.1. Two suits C.S. Nos. 112 and 116 of 1984 relating to dissolution of partnership and accounting between the partners as well as partition of the properties and C.S. No. 14 of 1984 based on a claim arising out of a settlement of accounts between the parties, have given rise to the instant appeals, viz., O.S.A. Nos. 65 and 68 of 1992,33 of 1993 and 111 of 1991. The first three appeals are invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a common judgment in C.S. Nos. 112 and 186 of 1984 by a learned single Judge of this Court, who has granted the relief of declaration that the suit partnership business firm of M/s. L.K. Ayyavoo Naidu and Sons, created by the partnership deed, dated 1.4.1974, stood dissolved on 5.8.1983 on the death of one of its two partners, viz. A. Kannappan and thus decreed C.S. No. 112 of 1984, but has dismissed C.S. No. 186 of 1984 in all respects except to render true and proper accounts, stating inter alia, as follows:I am inclined to hold that the plai...
Rajasekaran Gramani Vs. Nagarathinammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ438
Srinivasan, J.1. The appeal is at the instance of the third defendant in the suit, who is the brother of the plaintiff. The first defendant is another sister of the appellant. The second defendant was a brother, who died after the filing of the suit. Defendants 4 to 17 are alienees.2. The first defendant filed a suit O.S. No. 150 of 1960 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were defendants in that suit. Defendants 2 and 3 contested the suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 30.9.1961 granting 1/ 4th share to the plaintiff. Thereafter, a final decree was passed on 14.11.1962. That was done after a Commissioner visited the properties and submitted a report containing a scheme of division. Based on that report, a final decree was passed.3. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 6.1.1975 for partition and separate possession of her share after setting aside the final decr...
Kuppan Vs. S.A. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ441
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for withdrawal and transfer of A.S.S.R. Nos. 16110 and 16111 of 1993 respectively from the file of the Principal City Civil Court, Madras to the appellate side of the High Court in deciding the maintainability of the said appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard with regard to the maintainability of these two petitions. He would submit that before the appeal is taken on file by the Presiding Officer of a court, it is to be construed as a 'proceeding' and as such it will come within the purview of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and so these petitions are maintainable.2. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The term 'proceeding' has not been defined in this section or in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. But Section 24(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:'proceeding' includes a proceeding for exec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »