Chennai Court February 1994 Judgments
Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. Subramaniam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad367
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in E. P. No. 30/88 dated 4-5-1990, directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty for the present market value of the suit property in the above said E. P.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that stamp duty has to be paid only for the value mentioned in the agreement and not for the market value of the property on the date when the decree is sought to be executed, drew the attention of this court to the decision of this court in C. R. P. No. 942 of 1987 (D. Jayaraman v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Balem) dated 6-11-1990. The said decision applies to the present case. Accordingly, the order of the trial court in E. P. 30 of 1988 in O. S. 77 of 1985 is set aside and the lower court is directed to execute the decree as per the value given in the agreement of sale. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.This petition having been po...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. Subramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ256
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in E.P. No. 30 of 1988, dated 4.5.1990, directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty for the present market value of the suit property in the above said E.P.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that stamp duty has lobe paid only for the value mentioned in the agreement and not for the market value of the property on the date when the decree is sought to be executed, drew the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in D. Jayaraman v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem and Anr. C.R.P. No. 942 of 1987 dated 6.11.1990. The said decision applies to the present case. Accordingly, the order of the trial court in E.P. No. 30 of 1988 in O.S. No. 77 of 1985 is set aside and the lower court is directed to execute the decree as per the value given in the agreement of sale. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.3. This matter...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nachimuthu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2760
1. The accused has been convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No separate sentence has been passed under section 161, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : P.W. 1 Kuppan is a resident at Kootteripattu village. He had three acres of land at the boundary of Edappalayam village on the side of the G.S.T. road there. He had construction a hut in it and was keeping in it agricultural implements. On both sides of the G.S.T. Road the Forest Department had planted tree saplings under the Social Forest Scheme. The accused Nachimuthu, a Forester in that department was in Kootteripattu. He placed Valikathan thorns in front of that house obstructing the way to the house from the road. P.W. 1 went to the Forest Watcher (P.W. 4) but he directed P.W. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajasekar and Others Vs. S. Thirugnana Sambandam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)433; 1994CriLJ3583
ORDER1. The accused 2 to 4 is S.T.C. 1148/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Wallajahpet, accused 1 to 3 in C.C. 883/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Melur and accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 1100/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Erode, have filed these petitions respectively under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : In S.T.C. 1148/90, the first respondent has filed the complaint against four accused for offences punishable under sections 29(1) read with 3(k)(i) and 33(1) of the Insecticides Act. The relevant allegations in it are briefly as follows :- A. 1 is the retail dealer of pesticides. A. 2 is the State Distributor for M/s. Bayer India Limited and A. 3 and A. 4 are incharge of the business as Regional Sales Technical Manager and Manager formulation for production in a Registered Manufacturer of insecticides under the Act. They are doing business under the name and style of M/s. Baye...
Tag this Judgment!Mariastella and ors. Vs. Rajarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ623
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 92 of 1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The suit is for declaration that the order of eviction dated 13.1.1983 made in R.C.O.P. No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Mayiladuthurai (District Munsif) confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1983 and as confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3220 of 1984 is invalid in law, null and void, inexecutable and unenforceable, having been passed without jurisdiction, and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from enforcing the said order of eviction and interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of Rajagopala Vandaiyar and they had become divided already by partition of their joint family properties. Later on, they started a partnership business in the name an...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramakrishnan Vs. R. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas709(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 165 of 1993, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore, had filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.2. The short facts are : The respondents has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : For the debt due, on September 15, 1992, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs. 4,00,000 dated February 15, 1993. The complainant presented the cheque on February 17, 1993, through Central Bank, Peelamedu. It was returned with a memo 'payment countermanded' on February 18, 1993. Without providing sufficient funds, with a view to cheat, the accused had given instructions to countermand the payment. The complainant sent the statutory notice on...
Tag this Judgment!Marya Teresa MartIn Vs. Martin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC401
L. Manoharan, J.1. Judgment debtor in E.P. 6 of 1992 in S.F.C.O.P. 283 of 1992 pending in the District Court, Kollam is the revision petitioner. Respondent is the decree holder and husband of the revision petitioner. They have only one issue, a daughter aged 5 years. Respondent is residing at Madras. According to the revision petitioner she left him along with her child in May 1989 and started living at Kollam on account of the cruelty of the respondent who according to her is living with a concubine. Revision petitioner filed M.C. 26 of 1991 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam claiming maintenance for herself and the child. According to the revision petitioner, as a counter blast to the said proceeding, the respondent filed S.F.C.O.P. 283 of 1992 in the Family Court at Madras for appointing him as guardian of his minor daughter and also for the custody of the child. It is alleged by the revision petitioner that the respondent has also filed an O.P. for restitution of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Ethirajulu Chettiar Vs. K. Jeevarathinam Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ411
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Salem District, dated 27.7.1993 in unnumbered plaint O.S. No... of 1993 where under the court below has chosen to reject the plaint without even numbering it.2. The suit appears to have been filed for a decree declaring the decree passed in O.S. No. 601 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem on 15.12.1980 in respect of the suit property as null and void, for declaring that the decree passed in the said suit on the date referred to above is unenforceable and not binding on the defendant in the said suit and restraining the defendant in the present suit from executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 601 of 1974 in E.P. No. 36 of 1991 pending execution on the file of the court below. The court below, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the suit claim is barred under Article 59 of th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramaswamy Vs. K. Sudarsan Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas673(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 1255 of 1991, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying of the call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The complainant is the eldest son of K. Subba Rao, and looking after his father's business. Since his father is aged 70 years and undergoing treatment for cardiac ailment and was advised by doctors not to move about or attend to any business, K. Subba Rao has executed a power of attorney in favour of the complainant on December 24, 1990, giving him power to proceed against the accused for committing the offence under section 138 of the Act. The accused received Rs. 1,03,000 as loan from K. Subba Rao, and on demand, has ...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Exporters Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC221
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the export of ready-made garments. They imported a consignment of stapling machines from Japan. Actually the goods are described as 'Max HD-10 Staplers' valued at Rs. 2,88,793.10 against four REP licences and sought clearance of the goods as Capital Goods in terms of paragraph 175 of the import Trade Control Policy for April-March 1978-79. The fourth respondent was of the opinion that under the said paragraph 175 only import of capital goods in Part-A of Appendix 2 in the said Policy for April-March 1978-79, was permitted. According to him the subject goods are ordinary small appliances used in offices, homes and shops. They are not used in industries. He therefore, felt the subject goods cannot be treated as capital goods or as packing machines falling under Serial No. 6(68) of Part-A of Appendix 2 referred to above. The goods being in the nature of consumer goods falling under Serial No. 750 of Appendix 3 of the I.T.C. Policy, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »