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.
R. Ganesan and ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Struthozhil Branch Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ491
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry, dated 2.2.1994 in I.A. No. 1419 of 1993 in O.S. No. 13 of 1992, whereunder the court below has ordered the impleading of the petitioners herein as party defendants 4 to 6 to the suit by allowing an application filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the typed set of papers filed it is seen that the suit O.S. No. 13 of 1992 has been filed by the plaintiff- Bank on the equitable mortgage for realisation of the amount by passing a preliminary decree and also for the sale of hypothecation in case the amount as per the preliminary decree is not paid. The plaint averments discloses that though the loanees were accorded loan facilities on personal guarantees initially and on letters of pledge, it is only on 16.2.1990 the plaintiff-Bank obtained from defendants 2 and 3 a mortgage by depo...
The Chairman-cum-The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Dr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ65
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. In these appeals claimants have entered appearance. As far as the Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice. As these appeals involve short question, the same are admitted and are heard for final disposal.2. These appeals are preferred against a common order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 10788, 10789 and 10790 of 1994 preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Madras, who is the appellant in all these appeals.3. Vast extent of land is acquired for the use of the appellant. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as long back as on 20.1.1988. Thereafter, there was a reference at the instance of the claimants in the civil court and the civil court also passed an award on 19.1.1989. We are informed that being aggrieved by the civil court's award, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed A.S. Nos. 657 to 659 of 1989 before this Co...
Dhandapani Naidu Vs. the Debt Relief Special Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ515
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Debt Relief Special Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, holding that the third respondent herein is a debtor within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976. The petitioner got a mortgage from the third respondent's father on 19.9.1973 by lending a sum of Rs. 2,000. The subject matter of the mortgage is the land in S. No. 39/1, Part 1 acre 28 1/2 cents in Vanapuram village and an extent of 50 cents in S. No. 117/3 and another in S. No. 117/3 of 50 cents in Edukanur village. The mortgage deed expressly refers to the well situated in the land as well as the baling instruments and the customary right to take water in a channel. According to the mortgage deed, the mortgagor has one half right in the well, baling instruments and in the channel rights which were made subject matter of the mortgage.2. The third respondent applied to the Tahsildar, the first respondent claiming that he was a debtor unde...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Gopal Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)39; [1995]214ITR637(Mad)
Mishra J.1. We are following in the instant case, the method adopted by another Bench in Tax Cases Nos. 943 and 1320 of 1991 (CGT v. Gopal Srinivasan (Minor) : [1995]214ITR641(Mad) and many other cases, only because we are informed at the Bar that there is a chance of all controversies in this behalf coming to an end and this and other cases, which have already been ordered by the other Bench, constituted the bulk that might dispose of the controversies once for all. We have not been able to know how in the instant case, the third question of law referred to us, i.e., whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the break-up value of the shares should be discounted by 30 per cent. because of the restrictions contained in the memorandum and articles of association of the company in the matter of alienation of shares, has arisen. But we see reason for a reference of the second question whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the balance-sheet as at March 31,...
Chowgule Brothers Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC91; 1996(82)ELT204(Mad)
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. The appellant filed an import manifest for importing urea. In the import manifest it was stated that the quantity of urea to be imported was 12,370 M. Ts. and it was to be unloaded at Karwar, Karnataka. There was a draught survey and in that draught survey, it was found that the actual quantity discharged was only 12,292.552 M. Ts. and that there was a shortlanding of 77,448 M. Ts. of urea, valued at Rs. 1,09,936.66. On that, a penalty of Rs. 1,40,000 has been levied under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The original authority as well as the Appellate authority and the revisional authority have held that as per the import manifest filed by the importer, the quantity imported was 12,370 M. Ts. This was the quantity mentioned in the bill of lading. However, by the time, the urea came to be discharged at the destination point, namely, Karwar Port, the quantity discharged was only 12,292.552. M. Ts. Even though the appellant w...
Mahavoor Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Inspector of La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ319Mad
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated July 21, 1994, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12445/94.2. The petitioner sought for quashing the order issued by the 2nd Respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour of M.W. No. 103/92 dated April 4, 1994, directing the appellant to apply the minimum wages fixed for the employees working in the shop of the appellant society. The learned single judge has held that the employees working in the shop of the appellant fall within the schedule employment, therefore, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are attracted, hence, the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, does not call for interference.2-A. Before us it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a Service Co-operative Society, that for the benefit of its members it runs a fair price shop, and as such, it does not fall under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Shops...
Goutham Surana and Sons Represented by Its Karta Gouthamchand Surana V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ493
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, j.1. The plaintiff is the applicant in the original application which has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his men, etc., from interfering with the possession and operation of the vehicle TNX.5455 by the applicant on the route Cuddalore to Villupuram and the 1st respondent from operating any other vehicle on the route in question pending disposal of the suit. R. Jeyasimna Babu, J., on 26.8.1994 has granted interim injunction for a period of four weeks and ordered notice to the respondents. The 1st respondent has filed Application No. 5173 of 1994 for vacating the interim injunction.2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the above applications are as follows: The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle TNX.5455. According to the applicant, the 1st respondent has borrowed certain amounts from M/s. H. Mahaveerchand Kothari and executed hire purchase agreement in favour of the said M/s. H. Mahaveerchand Kothari in...
Raju Pillai and Others Vs. V.P. Paramasivan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad253
ORDER1. This Revision is filed by the respondents 1 to 4 and 7 in I.A. No. 156 of 1989 in unnumbered O.S. of 1989. The said I.A. was filed by the respondents herein, seeking permission to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the proposed suit are :(1) For permission to the plaintiffs to institute and prosecute the suit in a representative capacity; (2) that a scheme to framed for proper management of the properties and the affairs of the plaintiffs' community; (3) for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs' community represenled by its office bearers appointed under the Scheme or represented by the plaintiffs themselves; (4) for a direction to the defendants 1 to 3 to render a true and correct account of their management of the properties and affairs of the plaintiffs' community, to the community respresented by its office-bearers appointed under a Scheme or represented by th...
Canara Bank Vs. N. Palani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas457(Mad)
S.S. Subramani J.1. This revision is by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 267 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur. 2. In the execution of the decree, the decree-holder wanted to attach a fixed deposit receipt to the extent of Rs. 6,066.15. By the impugned order, the executing court held that the amount is not liable to be attached and, consequently, the execution petition was dismissed. The main reason for dismissing the petition was, that the amount which represents the fixed deposit was the life insurance policy amount payable to the deceased judgment-debtor and the same is exempted from attachment under section 60(1)(kb) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the executing court, even if the amount has changed hands and is now in fixed deposit, the character of the amount is the same and hence it is exempted from attachment. The correctness of the said order is challenged in this revision. 3. To appreciate the contention of the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Gangiah Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)340; [1995]214ITR548(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The two questions referred to the court for its opinion are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled at allowances under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the building owned by it, but used by its parents for their residence for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the property owned by it, which was used by its partners for their residence prior to its sale, for the assessment year 1978-79 ?' 2. The two questions have to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal, we shall presently see, has committed an error in accepting the case of the assessee-firm for allowance under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›