Chennai Court November 1994 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.
Dr. S. Illangovan Vs. A. Kaliyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ291
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruchi, dismissing the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.2. The petitioner's case is briefly as follows: The petitioner is the father of the minor child Anitha. The mother of the child viz., Suseela died on 9.10.1983 at the B.H.E.L. Hospital, Tiruchi. The respondent is the father of the deceased Suseela. After her death, the child was taken by the respondent under the guise of temporary nursing up of the baby. The respondent who is a retired Sanitary Worker under the Railways is not having any wherewithal or means of livelihood to maintain the child. He is interested in keeping the custody of the child to make a claim on the monetary benefits due to the minor child consequent on the death of her mother. The continuance of the child in the hands of the respondent is not congenial or healthy. The petitioner as the natural guardian of the girl is entitled to have the cu...
Ramasamy Konar Vs. Kolanji Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ199
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam returning the grounds of appeal for presentation in proper court on the ground that no appeal will lie against the judgment passed by the District Munsif, Vridhachalam in O.S. No. 3372 of 1979 on the ground that the suit is of a small cause nature.2. The plaintiffs case is as follows:The defendant for valid consideration received on 1.9.1973, executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,500 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid the amount. The suit has been filed after the moratorium period between 16.1.1975 and 13.6.1979 was over.3. The defendant in her written statement contends as follows: The defendant neither received any consideration nor executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. There is no necessity for her to borrow since she has got valuable properties. The...
Usha Devi Vs. S. Kolandasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ501
ORDERN. Arnnmgham, J.1. This revision is canvassed challenging the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Erode, made in C.M.A. No. 64 of 1992, dated 17.9.1993, whereby granting injunction in favour of the respondents herein and restraining the revision petitioner from taking delivery of possession of the suit property, which was rejected by the learned First Additional District Munsif in I.A. No. 1584 of 1992.2. The revision petitioner is the auction purchaser of the suit property, furnished with the sale certificate issued by the executing court, namely, the Principal District Munsif Court of Erode as the suit property was purchased by her in the court auction held on 22.1.1992. The suit property was the mortgaged hypotheca given by the first defendant in the suit, being the father of the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, and the other two sons, in the year 1974, by executing a simple mortgagee. However, which resulted in filing the suit by the mortgage passin...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Secals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR346(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. Before we refer to the facts, we may recapitulate subsection (1) (b) (B) (i) of section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which says that the sum referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 33 shall be in the case of machinery or plant where the machinery or plant is installed for the purposes of business of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule - thirty-five per cent. of the actual cost of the machinery or plant to the assessee, where it is installed before the 1st day of April, 1970, and twenty-five per cent. of such cost, where it is installed after the 31st day of March, 1970. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 33 states that subject to section 34 of the Act, a deduction will be allowed in respect of the previous year in which the machinery or plant was installed or, if the ship, machinery or plant is first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year, ...
Velu Gounder and ors. Vs. Kanna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ355
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The respondent had filed O.S. No. 458 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Ami, for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 17.6.1967. The respondent has taken out execution proceedings in E.P. No. 618 of 1967 and the respondent took possession from the petitioner one of the items of the suit property on 30.7.1967, and the execution petition was dismissed on 30.8.1967 since the respondent did not pay batta in respect of another suit item. Thereafter on 18.6.1977, the respondent filed E.P. No. 178 of 1977 for recovery of the remaining item of the suit property, for which, the earlier execution petition was dismissed. The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 235 of 1977, praying for the cancellation of the decree in O.S. No. 458 of 1964 and obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfe...
Arif U. Patel Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1935
Arunachalam, J.1. Petitioner Arif U. Patel, the detenu himself, has prayed for issue of a Habeas for his production before this Court, as that he could be set free after quashing the impugned order dated 28th July, 1994 passed against him by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, with a view to preventing him from engaging in abetting in the procurement and export from India of narcotic drugs. 2. A brief resume of the facts which led to the passing of the impugned order may be necessary. On a tip off by the NCB Zonal unit, Madras, through the Drug Liasion Officer, HM Customs and Excise, based at Bombay, the Israeli Police had seized a huge quantity of Hashish from a container on board a vessel 'ZIM TOKYO' at Port Ashdode. Israel, which was alleged to contain 180 cartons of vacuum flasks shipped by M/s. V. J. Exports, Alwarpet, Madras. The Intelligence Officers ...
Thangian Vs. Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ194
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai dated 9.12.1986 dismissing the application to restore the appeal which was dismissed for default.2. The plaintiff who was the appellant before the Sub Judge, Pattukottai is the appellant herein.3. The petitioner's case is as follows: The petitioner/appellant/plaintiff has preferred the appeal against the judgment passed in O.S. No. 222 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai. He filed an application for reception of additional pleadings. It was dismissed by the appellate Court. The appellant preferred a revision to the High Court and the bundle was with the Advocate at Madras. The bundle could not be received by the appellant from Madras before the hearing date. On receipt of the same he met his advocate at Pattukottai. He was informed that the appeal was posted for hearing on 26.2.1986 and since the appellant did not meet the Advocate, his Advocate had reported no inst...
Munuswamy Vs. S.S. Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ366
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The concurrent finding given by both courts below, namely the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1990 dated 23.8.1990 confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1988 dated 12.12.1989, is canvassed in this revision by the revision petitioner, who is the landlord.2. The facts which led to this revision are extracted as follows:The respondent is the tenant in the rental premises bearing door number 54, Kongu Nagar 4th Street, Thiruppur in Coimbatore District on a monthly rental of Rs. 350 payable every month to the revision petitioner herein. Since the landlord is living in his house which is situated in Muthu Nagar with his family as well as his married son, his wife, children and widowed daughter and her children, in all, totalling twelve, the present residence is not adequate enough for all of them to have a minimum accommodation even and that therefore, the landlord/ revision petitioner requires t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.S. Manickam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR591(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department in the case of the two assessees, who are brother, Sri. L. S. Manickam and L. S. Saravanabhavan, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the assessment year 1974-75 for out opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the lands in question cannot be treated as 'capital asset's if they were used for agricultural purpose on the date of sale and accordingly remitting it to the Income-tax Officer for competition of the capital gains on that basis for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee, Sri L. S. Manickam, sold 26 cents of land claimed to be agricultural lands situated in the town limit in Annathanapatti village for Rs. 11,310 as per the sale deed dated February 3, 1974. The assessee also sol...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajalakshmi Venkatakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR596(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in holding that the annual payment made by the Royal Insurance Company to the assessee is not liable to be treated as income in the hands of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the allowance made by the Royal Insurance Company of the U.K. to the widow of Sri Venkatakrishnan is a gift and, therefore, no assessable as income in her hands in sustainable in law. 2. The assessee is an individual. Her husband, Sri Venkatakrishnan, was an employee of Royal Insurance Company of the United Kingdom. On January 1, 1973, the business of Royal Insurance Company was taken over by the General Insurance Company, a Government of India undertaking. The husband of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »