Chennai Court December 1994 Judgments
Mrs. Nazimunnissa Begum Vs. Abdul Majeeth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3156; I(1996)DMC274
ORDER1. This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, in Crl.R.C. No. 8 of 1992 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Trichy in Crl.M.P. No. 4728 of 1990 in the petition filed under Section 128 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The parties are Muslims. The revision petitioner was married to the respondent herein in 1978 and the respondent is said to have divorced the petitioner according to Muslim law by pronouncing Talaq in 1985 and also has married a second wife in September 1985. The petitioner filed the petition M.C. No. 12 of 1985 on the file of the judicial Magistrate VI, Trichy, under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed the order on 23-5-1986 allowing the petition for payment of maintenance by the respondent herein at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. It is pertinent to mention that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (hereinafter to be refer...
Tag this Judgment!Vembadian Mani Vs. Sivagami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC217
Srinivasan, J. 1. This suo mo tu civil revision petition is against an order dated 4.10.1994 in H.M.O.P. No. 65 of 1994 in M.C. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. This is a suo motu revision in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian against an extraordinary interim order passed by the Family Court in conciliation proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 65 of 1994 under Hindu Marriage Act and M.C. No. 71 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that Vembadian Mani has filed H.M.O.P. No. 65 of 1994 against his wife Sivakami for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is not necessary to refer to the allegations made by him in the original petition. The petition was originally filed in the Sub Court, Madurai and after the Constitution of the Family Court, it was transferred administratively to the file of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakrishna Trading Company Represented by Partner K.T.K. Venkatesan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ255
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 and 6 in OS. No. 145 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Sankari, are the appellants. Defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte in the suit. The plaintiff is the sole respondent in this appeal. The respondent filed the suit for recovery the amounts in respect of goods sold and delivered. It is his case that the 1st defendant partnership firm and the 2nd defendant acted as agents of the respondent and introduced defendants 4 and 5 (who are not parties to this appeal) to the respondent and procured orders from the defendants 4 and 5. As per the agreement, the goods were to be supplied and despatched through a named Lorry Transport and Hundis accepted by defendants 4 and 5 were to be retired through the Allahabad Bank. Defendant No. 1 was entitled to 2% commission. Defendants 4 and 5 accepted Hundis but failed to make payment to an extent of Rs. 27,600. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above suit and claimed interest at 21% per annum. The...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Madras - 600005 and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthi Trust Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR639(Mad)
T. Somasundaram, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Circular No. 372 (see : [1984]146ITR9(Guj) ), dated December 8, 1983, issued by the Central Board of Director Taxes and the orders of the second respondent dated July 28, 1988, February 22, 1989, June 30, 1989, June 30, 1990, March 21, 1991, March 20, 1992, February 22, 1992 and April 19, 1993, denying exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the petitioner-trust for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92, respectively, and to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act, independent of Circular No. 372 (see : [1984]146ITR9(Guj) ), dated December 8, 1983. 2. The petitioner-trust was created under an instrument of declaration of trust on March 1, 1954, for the purpose of establishing the Tamil daily ('Daily Thanthi') by the founder of the said newspaper o...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthi Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR626(Mad)
T. Somasundaram J. 1. These writ petitioners have been filed for these of write of certiorari to quash the orders in No. 47-005-AZ-5117 of 1979-80 to 47-005-AZ-5117 of 1983-84 dated July 28, 1988, made in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84, respectively, on the petitioner-trust. 2. The petitioner-trust was created an instrument of declaration of trust on March 1, 1954, for the purpose of establishing the Tamil daily ('Daily Thanthi') by the founder of the said newspaper one Sri S. B. Aditanar, who was carrying on the business of printing and publishing of the said newspaper as a sole proprietor since 1942. The petitioner-trust is an assessee on the file of the respondent-Income-tax Officer in P.A. No. 47-005-AZ-5117. 3. On July 9, 1957, the founder of the trust executed a supplementary deed wherein he declared that the trust created by the document dated March 1, 1954, was irrevocable. Again, the founder of the trust, on June 28, 1961, executed a supplementary deed. By...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar, University of Madras and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Aerated Water Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT265(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions involve for consideration identical issue on similar factual circumstances apart from concerning the same subject matter and learned counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common. Hence dealt with together for consideration. 2. So far as the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 8825 of 1994 is concerned, the factual claims and legal contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support thereof may be set out in some detail. The above Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the notification of the first respondent in No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 particularly paragraph 4 thereof and consequently direct the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner under Notification No. 175/86/C.E. as amended to-day. The petitioner claims that he is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks, fruit juices falling under Chapter 22 of the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C. Rep. by Its Regional Director, Madras Vs. Trichy Dist. Co-op. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ581Mad
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli made in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 1976 and E.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of 1977, dated 23-7-1986 in which E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 1976 were filed by the Trichy District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited represented by its Managing Director under Sec. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, praying to declare the order passed by the Employees State insurance, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 26,225.77 as employees contribution for the period from 28.6.1967 to 30.6.1973 as illegal, void and unenforceable in E.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of 1976 to pay assume of Rs. 24,886.50 covering for the period from 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975 in E.S.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1976 to the abovesaid effect, to pay a sum of Rs. 27,396 as contribution for the period covering from 30.6.1970 to 30.6.1973 to the abovesaid effect in E.S.I.O.P. No. 3 of 1976 and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,120 as contributio...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees State Insurance Corporation represented by Its Regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ516
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirappali made in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 1976 and E.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of 1977, dated 23.7.1986 in which E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 1976 were filed by the Trichy District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, represented by its Managing Director under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, praying to declare the order passed by the Employees State Insurance, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 26,225.77 as employees contribution for the period from 28.6.1967 to 30.6.1973 as illegal, void and unenforceable in E.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of 1976 to pay a sum of Rs. 24,886,50 covering for the period from 1.7.1973 to 31.3.1975 in E.S.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1976 to the abovesaid effect, to pay a sum of Rs. 27,396 as contribution for the period covering from 30.6.1970 to 30.6.1973 to the abovesaid effect in E.S.I.O.P. No. 3 of 1976 and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,120 as contribu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »