Chennai Court January 1995 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. Sahubar Sadique, M.D. (Gen) Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC183
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the responent to select and admit the Petitioner in D.M. (Neurology) in any one of the colleges, viz., in Madurai Medical college, Madurai or in Stanley Medical College, Madras where one seat each for D.M.(Neurology) exclusively meant for service candidate quota is kept vacant for the academic year 1994-95.3. The short facts leading to the writ petition are:-The petitioner is an Assistant surgeon working in the Government Head-quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram. He passed the M.B.B.S., degree in the year 1982 and thereafter he has joined the P.G. course-M.D.(General) in the Madurai Medical College, Madurai in the year 1986 and completed in 1989. In May, 1994 he sent application seeking admission for D.M. (Neurology) and D.M.(Cardiology) for the academic year 1994-95 in response to the Advertisement inviting applications by the second res...
The Special Tahsildar (La) Vembakottai Reserved Projeet Scheme Unit No ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ645
Abdul Hadi, J.1. All these four land acquisition first appeals are by the Government, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Vembakottai Reservoir Project Scheme, Unit No. I, Srivilliputhur being the actual appellant in all the appeals.2. A.S. No. 122 of 1988 arises out of L. A.O.P. No. 39 of 1986, A.S. No. 123 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No. 40 of 1986, A.S. No. 124 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No. 71 of 1987 and A.S. No. 125 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No. 41 of 1986.3. The claimants in all these L.A.O.Ps. are clearly related and the respective lands acquired are also in the same area. The date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is also same in all the cases it being 10.8.1983. Further, in all these four cases, though the award was passed on 12.7.1985, possession of the acquired lands was taken on 1.11.1983 itself. As per the decision of the court below, all these acquires lands form part of 'Thope'' ma...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. W. Doraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)157; [1995]215ITR853(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The assessee claimed assessment under s. 7(4) of the WT Act, 1957, before its repeal and substitution by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. The CWT, however, exercised the power under s. 25(2) of the Act, called for and examined the records of the proceedings, found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and after hearing the assessee and enquiry set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the WTO (the assessing authority) to redo the assessment in accordance with law. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the CWT's order and restored the assessment. The Revenue has since obtained a reference under s. 27(1) of the Act on the question whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the house was exclusively used by the assessee for residential purposes throughout the period of 12 months immediatel...
R. Gurusamy Dasan and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Adminis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ530
Govardhan, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. 2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiffs and their ancestors are and were the hereditary trustees-cum- poosaries of the suit temple. The suit lands are Devadayam Inam covered under the title deed No. 320 and have been granted as service Inam in favour of the temple on 23.2.1864. The predecessors of the plaintiff and subsequently plaintiffs continued to do pooja service in the temple. They have leased the lands and from the lease amount and from their common sources they were conducting poojas in the temple. The lessees have never done the pooja in the temple. The predecessors-in- interest of the plaintiffs Palanichamy Gounder one of the lessees sold a portion of the same to Subba Naicker father of defendants 3 to 5. Mariyappa Thevar another lessee sold the remaining portion to Kaliana Gounder the second defendant. The patta has been granted in favour of the Deity by the Settlement Tahsildar. The villagers do not co...
P.S. Ramanathan and Company Represented by Its Managing Partner Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ565
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition in limine. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to furnish tender documents pertaining to Press Notice/Engg.RO/32(10) 94-95, dated 23.6.1994 comprising five items of work to the petitioner. The said press notice invited sealed percentage rate tenders for the works specified therein. It is not necessary to give the details of the items of work mentioned therein. But, it should be pointed out that each item is described as 'ARMO Civil Works' at the places mentioned therein. For example, Item No. 1 refers to ARMO Civil Works at FSD Harbour of Madras for 1994-95. It comprises of two parts. The first for providing and fixing polycoated 'J' Bolts in the roof of E4 Godown, while the second relates to painting to Roof trusses and puttis at E1 Godown. Item 3 refers to ARMO Civil Worksat FSD Arakkonam for 1994-95 comprising of repairs to Service roads. Item 5 ref...
T. Chandra Rajan Vs. K. Radha Alias Mahalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ624
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order dated 1.8.1994 passed in I.A. No. 133 of 1991 while disposing of the main petition, H.M.O.P. No. 16 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. The petitioner herein husband has filed main O.P. under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriages Act. 1955, for divorce on the ground that the respondent/ wife has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition. It is seen that out of the wedlock a male and a female child were born and from May, 1984, onwards the respondent/ wife left without any reason deserting him, to her parents' house and in spite of best efforts taken she was not amenable even to the panchayat and having deserted the petitioner is entitled to divorce as payed for. The wife denied the claim of the husband pleading that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage and that he has been in the habit of ill-treating...
N. Saroja Vs. Sri Vidya Chits and Finance (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ74
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchi in I. A. No. 44 of 1985 in O.P. No. 43 of 1979 allowing the same and revoking the Letters of Administration granted in respect of the unregistered Will dated 27.4.1973 said to have been executed by one Kaliammal.2. The averments in the petition are as follows: Respondents 2 and 3 borrowed movies from the petitioner on the foot of an equitable mortgage. Since they did not pay the money, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 474 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli which was later on transferred to the Sub Court, Karur and numbered as O.S. No. 308 of 1975. In spite of the contest made by the respondents 2 and 3, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 27.1.1977. Since the respondents have not paid any money even after the passing of the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed an application in LA. No. 555 of 1977 and a final decree has been passed o...
T.R.S. Mani Sastrigal Alias Mani Sastrical Vs. T.R. Suryanarayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad152
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No. 332 of 1987 in the Court of District Munsif of Sirkuli, The respondent/plaintiff instituted that suit against him for recovery of possession of 62 cents of land in R.S. No. 153/11 of Thirnvengadu, Sirkali taluk. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that this part of the vacant site situate on the southern side of the defendant's house was allotted to him in the family partition. His farther permitted the revision petitioner defendant to put up a cattle shed and hay-rick therein on a charge of Rs. 2/- per month. In the agreement entered into between the parties on 1-7-1973 this permission was reiterated. In July, 1984 the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per year by mutual arrangement.2. The revision petitioner resisted the suit contending that he came to occupy the land more than 60 years ageo and eversince then he is in continuous enjoyment of the same. Except those portions over which hay-rick and cattle sh...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Sairam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ1
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 7.2.1994, passed by the learned single Judge on Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4970 of 1993. All the plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 272 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankari, are the appellants in the Appeal No. 259 of 1993. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.7.1984. The appellants in this L.P.A. has entered into an agreement with one K.A. Shanmugham and K. Sengodan who are respondents 5 and 6 in this L.P.A. agreeing to sell the suit schedule property. However respondents 5 and 6 herein issued a notice through a lawyer to the appellant herein on 11.7.1985. demanding the advance amount paid to the appellant herein, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement of sale and also claimed damages. The trial court has dismissed the suit. One of the grounds on which the trial court has dismissed the suit, is that the agreement has been revoked by the respondents 5 ...
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli Represented by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ580
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1.The petitioner's main business is to mine lignite and out of the lignite mined, generate electricity, produce uren, leco, and other commercial by products. The petitioner is also having a transport Department which plies vehicles within the campus and outside the campus. The petitioner has got a fleet of buses, lorries, water tankers, bousers and other specialised vehicles. As per the memo filed by the petitioner, there are three categories of vehicles (a) vehicles (Heavy goods vehicles, stage carriages, omni buses, jeeps, cars and two-wheelers) plying inside and outside the petitioner's campus for which tax is levied under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and paid periodically. There are 189 numbers of such vehicles, (b) vehicles, heavy goods vehicles etc. for which no tax is levied as they are exempted from payment of tax under G.O.Ms. No. 2321, dated 19.12.1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 2742, dated 19.11.1981. There are 581 such vehicles according to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »