Chennai Court January 1995 Judgments
M.R. Easwaran Vs. C. Keppaiya Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ290
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised three objections to the fixation of fair rent by the Authorities below.2. The first is that a single petition for fixation of fair rent is not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondents have purchased different portions of the property under different sale deeds marked as Exs. A-9 to A-14. According to him, there should be six different petitions for fixation of fair rent with regard to each of the portions. I am unable to accept this contention. Admittedly the tenancy was a single one. He is the tenant of the entire building which bears only one door number and he is paying a sum of Rs. 425 for the entire building. By arrangement he is paying to the father, who is the first respondent, and the other respondents are only daughters of the first respondent. The court below have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rukmani Ammal v. Izudeen : AIR1983Mad303 . Learned Counsel submits that the ruling does n...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad70
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. All these appeals are preferred by the State Government against the common order dated 10th September, 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 2430, 3203, 5976, 17785, 18365, 18442, 18476, 18581, 18715, 18832, 18900, 18950, 19165, 19314, 19431,19460 to 19462, 19598, 19599, 19647, 19715, 19720 and 19720 and 19870/90 6 to 8, 87, 248, 458, 750, 506, 507, 750, 1236/1448, 2325, 2326. and 3936 of 1991. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions, quashed the order of the State Government dated 31-10-1989 bearing G.O.Ms. 1048, H. & U.D. Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and also quashed the individual orders passed by the Housing Board cancelling the allotment of plots made in favour of the writ petitioners. The direction or relief granted by the learned single Judge is as follows :--'Following the order in Writ Petition No. 17793 of 1990, dated 9-9-1991 and also on the basis of the conclusion arrived at herein, the result will be that the...
Tag this Judgment!Ananta Udyog Private Ltd. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas498(Mad); 1995(1)CTC206
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent has entered a caveat through counsel and with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellants instituted a proceeding under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the BEEFIER to declare itself as a sick industrial company. That proceeding was dismissed on March 17, 1994, on the footing that the first appellant was not an industrial company. The respondent filed C. S. No. 410 of 1994, in the original side of this court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,83,813.11 with subsequent interest. The suit was based on hire purchase agreements, between the respondent and the appellants dated May 28, 1990, and later dates. Pending the suit, the respondent filed an application in O. A. No. 2307 of 1994, for seizure and sale of the machinery which is the subject-matter of the hire purchase agreement. An order was passed on September 17, 1994, aft...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen Employed in the Canteen Run by Srf Ltd. Vs. Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1354]
Somasundaram, J.1. As some of the parties to these writ petitions and the points involved are common, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in these writ petitions are referred to in this order as canteen employees and the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 is referred to as SRF Company and the third respondent in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 who is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 4256 of 1994, viz, the Management of Industrial Catering Services (Private), Ltd., Royapuram, Madras 13, is referred to as contractor. 2. Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1994 is filed by the workmen employed in the canteen provided by SRF Company and run by the contractor, for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the SRF Company from dispensing with the services of 119 canteen employees without prior permission as per S. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The SRF Company has got a factor...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Tharmapitchai and anr. Vs. A.C.A. Funds
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC20
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The unsustainable order passed by the learned principal District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, in Execution petition No. 29 of 1990 in O.S.No. 24 of 1985 is being canvassed in this revision by the revision petitioners, who are the respondents and defendants 2 and 3 before the court below for its want of legality, propriety and correctness.2. The petitioners herein are the defendants 2 and 3 along with first defendant, who is not a party in the proceedings were sued by the respondent herein for the recovery of sum of Rs. 4,240/-with interest at the rate of 12 per per cent annum from 15.12.84 onwards based on a promissory note executed by them in favour of the respondent and the trial court, after the trial, has granted a decree in favour of the respondent herein in O.S. No. 24 of 1985 on 18.7.91. As the first defendant happened to be a police personnel working outside the jurisdiction of the executing court, who was the principal debtor and both the revision petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. Gopinath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad161; II(1995)DMC486
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. 16/92 on the file of Additional Family Court, Madras. The prayer in the suit is to declare that the marriage registered on 22-8-91 according to the Certificate No. 221/91 on the file of the Registrar of Hindu Marriages is not a valid marriage at all and to set aside the said Certificate as null and void.2. The case of the plaintiff/ appellant is asfollows :--She is a final year B.A. student in Bhiraj College, Madras, she was introduced to the defendant sometime back by a common friend. The defendant gave a flowery picture of the education and the status in life and represented to her that he was going to U.S.A. soon and he could get a visa for her loo. He promised to get her a good employment inU.S.A. immediately on her completion of education. He took her signatures in the forms of application for passport. On 22-8-91 he induced her to go to the office of the sub- Registrar. T. Nagar, fraudulently representing her that a ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Light Roofings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR916(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Two question are referred to us. One, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that generators would come under the classification of plant and machinery and hence extra-shift allowance has to be allowed; and second, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that certain liabilities should not be taken into account in the computation of capital employed for allowing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The first question is answered in CIT v. M. S. Sahadevan : [1980]123ITR820(Mad) by a Division Bench of this court, wherein it is pointed out that wherever the machinery is such that in-built into it is the electric motor, then it would be electrical machinery. The said view is reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Saran Khandsari Udyog : [1993]204ITR447(All) and the Kerala High Court in CIT v. P. Veriah : [1995]211I...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. P. Sethuraman, Chairman, M.D.L.B. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ1041Mad
K.A.Swami, C. J.1. These four writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 30th August 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. 10192 of 1994. Writ Appeal 1335 of 1994 is filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, whereas writ appeal 1384 of 1994 is filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, viz., Madras Dock Labour 1 Board. Writ Appeal 1385 of 1994 is filed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition and Writ Appeal 1390 of 1994 is filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the learned single Judge in so far as it holds that the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition as Deputy Chairman of Mormagao Dock Labour Board was not on deputation, but it was an appointment on selection, whereas the respondents are aggrieved by the order in so far as it directs respondents 1 and 2 that they could not transfer the 3rd respondent as Deputy Chairman of the Madras Dock Labour Board and that the post of Deput...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanagalingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Through Commissioner and Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ503
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These three writ appeals are preferred against a common order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 14451, 15451 and 10608 of 1993 respectively. Learned single Judge has dismissed W.P. No. 10608 of 1993 whereas allowed the other two writ petitions. The directions issued by the learned single Judge are as follows:(i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue transport permit to the petitioner to remove and transport the quarried materials pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 96, dated 21.2.1990:(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner bearing S. Nos. 22/7 22/8, 22/9A, 227 9B, 22/10 and 23/1 situated at Karaichithupudur village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, covered by the lease deeds in question, if need be after notice to parties.Writ Petition No. 10608 of 1993 was filed by one Sri P. Kanagalingam. He has no interest either in the mining leases granted by the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Ahluvaliya and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3511
Govardhan, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madras dated 9-4-1992 in S.C. No. 263/91. 2. Both the appellants herein stood charged under S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code of having committed murder of their daughters by name Pichu and Pushi aged 5 years each and son by name Tittu aged 3 year on the night of 1-6-1990 by administering poison to them with the intention of committing their murder. The first appellant was also charged under S. 309 of Indian Penal Code of having attempted to commit suicide by inflicting knife injuries all over his body. The second appellant was also charged under S. 309 of Indian Penal Code of having attempted to commit suicide by immolating herself after pouring kerosene over her body. 3. The learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty under the charges of S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code.(3 counts) and under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code, convicted them thereunder an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »