Chennai Court August 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.
Justyn Cyril Vs. Hannah Vasanthie
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC545; (1994)IMLJ17
Venkataswami and Srinivasan, J.1. The original petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act was filed by the husband He married the respondent on 15-9-1986 at Grace Church, Tirunagar Madurai District.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage was never consummated. When he made attempts to convince the respondent and have intercourse with her, she became violent and resisted the attempts of the petitioner. It is stated that on 5-10-1986, the respondent became violent and caused injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the elders of both the families. The respondent's mother as well as her grandfather were also informed. The respondent went to her mother's house on 25-10-1986, and refused to come back. She started living there permanently. She was also stating that the petitioner could marry another lady, and she had no objection therefore. Thereafter, there was an attempt for mediation, and the respondent executed a document called 'divor...
Annadhana Kattalai Arumigu Thiagaraja Swamy Devasthanam Vs. V. Vasudev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ73
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 8.10.1983 passed by the Sub Judge at Nagapattinam, in [I.A.T.] C.M.A. No. 31 of 1982. That was an appeal preferred against the order 7.7.1982 passed by the Settlement Officer [S.P. IX], Thanjavur in SRI/MNL/80]. It is not necessary to state the history of the case. It is sufficient to refer to the decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 1184 of 1980. By the order dated 5th November, 1981 the said civil revision petition which was filed by the petitioner herein was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer with a direction to dispose of the petition under Section 5 of Act 31 of 1983 and then lake up the inquiry under Act 26 of 1963. It is pursuant to this order, the Settlement Officer took up the proceedings. By the order dated 7.7.1982 in SRI/MNL/80, the Settlement Officer held that the land in question constituted a minor inam therefore the Assistant Settlement Officer shall take...
George Jacob Kuruvila Vs. Sapna Shivdas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ256
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The I.D.O.P. No. 26 of 1990 was filed by the respondent for divorce under Section 18 read with Section l9(1) of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 31.3.1986. Both of them were living together till the second week of July, 1989, but the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not consummated. The case of the petitioner is that whenever the petitioner approached the respondent with the intention of having marital company, the respondent became hysterical, threw tantrums and refused to have sexual relationship with the petitioner, that when the petitioner advised the respondent to get medical advice, the respondent refused to see any doctor, that she did not also give any reason to refuse marital company with the petitioner, and that therefore the petitioner had to conclude that the respondent is physically impotent and to presume she is incapable of having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. In July, 1989, she deserte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.T.S. Nagamanickam Chettiar (Decd.). ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR284(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the entire income from the business in Petroleum Products cannot be assessed as the income of the assessee family; but only the share income of the assessee should be assessed in the hands of the assessee is sustainable in law ?' 2. The aforesaid question came to be referred on the basis that the partnership firm formed by the Karta of the Hindu undivided family and the coparceners of that family could not legally from a partnership and the partnership formed by them was not valid. Therefore, the income was to be assessed in the hands of the family. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. It is relevant to notice that, in respect of the very partnership, this court had an occasion to consider in CIT v. K. T. S. Nagamanickam Ch...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR80(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was directed to make a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in T. C. P. No. 285 of 1978, the following question for a decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest received on the deposits kept with the Electricity Board should not be deducted from the gross total income while computing the relief admissible under section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. The facts necessary for deciding the aforesaid question are as follows : The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling paper products. The Income-tax Officer while computing the relief under section 80-I of the Act in the assessment for the year 1971-72 took the gross total income after setting off the depreciation of the current year and the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year. The income coming un...
Basil Products by Partners Vs. Mathuram Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ55
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), who is respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 3598 of 1985 filed by the 1st respondent-Original landlord for eviction is the revision petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are subsequent purchasers of the same building from the 1st respondent.2. In the abovesaid rent control original petition, the petitioner herein was set ex pane by order dated 25.2.1986 and so he filed M.P. No. 245 of 1986 to set aside the said order. No doubt in the said miscellaneous petition, an endorsement was made by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent on 28.3.1986 as follows:The respondent Mathuram Perumal is not filing any counter. Petition may be allowed and the main RCOP may be posted in the list, as the arrears of rent accumulates further.3. However, the Rent Controller has allowed the said miscellaneous petition only on condition that the 1st respondent pays a sum of Rs. 25...
S.A. Ponnuswami Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ155
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.8.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14364 of 1993. The petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order dated 19.1.1992 bearing S.M.R. 1/92 passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, on the ground that the Commissioner has passed the aforesaid order in exercise of his suo motu powers after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned single Judge has rejected the contention of the petitioner that the exercise of suo motu power by the Commissioner is arbitrary and he should not have exercised it after a lapse of 10 years. Learned single Judge has held that there is no time limit prescribed by Section 69(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction...
Mohamed HussaIn Sulaiman of Great Eastern Engineering Company Vs. Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ340
Mishra, J.1. The instant appeal is yet another in the series of cases in this Court, at the instance of the creditors in particular, in which before any adjudication of the money claim in the suit and accordingly, any decree, defendant's properties are sold through the intervention of the court, the sale proceeds are allowed to be appropriated by the plaintiff and as weshall presently see in the instant suit, the third party-purchasers are neither delivered any property, nor are they given the refund of the money so realised from them as the consideration of the auction purchase. The plaintiff/1st respondent has filed the suit, C.S. No. 351 of 1987 for recovery of Rs. 16,82,882.60 from respondents 2 to 4 and in default of payment for sale of B Schedule property in the plaint for realisation of the suit claim. Pending suit, however, the plaintiff/1st respondent filed Application No. 2084 of 1987 for appointment of an Advocate as Commissioner to take inventory of the stocks and other goo...
V.S. Balakrishnan Vs. Pudukottai Municipality Represented by Its Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ352
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 25.6.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1615 of 1990. As the writ petition has been dismissed, the petitioner has come up in appeal.2. In the writ petitioner, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing of the notification dated 29.1.1990 in Na.Ka.A.4/15423/89 proposing to put up the right to collect fees in the weekly market for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 at the Pudukottai Municipality. The notification was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that he is the lessee of the market in question as the same was leased to him under the indenture dated 5.4.1989 that though it was for the period between 1.4.1989 and 31.3.1990 it would not be open to the Municipality to evict the petitioner on the expiry of the period of lease without resorting to the procedure known to law. The Municipality opposed the writ petition and contended that the weekly market in question was not leased to the...
The State Vs. Arumugam and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2968
1. All the above four criminal appeals have been preferred by the State under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgments rendered by the then Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in S.T.R. Nos. 48, 51, 52 and 53 of 1985 dated 30th January 1986, finding the accused/respondents herein, not guilty under section 21(2) read with Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and accordingly, acquitting them under section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Since all the above four appeals have been preferred by the State challenging the legality and correctness of the judgments rendered by the learned trial Magistrate in different cases involving different parties, namely different respondents as accused but the complainant, the appellants herein namely, the Member-Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board being the same and the offences alleged against all the respondents here...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »