Chennai Court October 1995 Judgments
Kanikapathi Vishnusagar and ors. Vs. M. Ganeshpathi (Minor) Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ256
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 1910 of 1989 in O.S. No. 9172 of 1988. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. No. 9172 of 1988 are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs. 41,511 due on a promissory note dated 1.8.1985. According to the defendants, the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff also borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes for Rs. 30,000. Originally notice was given to the defendants on 2.6.1987 and again on 2.9.1987. Another notice was also issued stating that the original payee was one S. Mahalingam, but the suit was filed by a different person. A reply has been given to the said notice on 18.7.1987. According to the defendants, in respect of the total borrowings of Rs. 90,000, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by cash with the period ending December, 1986, another sum of Rs. 5,000 on 23.4.1987, a sum of Rs. 13,167 was paid by cheque a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Janakiraman Vs. N. Umadevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ241
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1530 of 1986 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction against the tenants under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent for owner's occupation and for acts of waste. According to the landlord, he is the owner of the petitioner premises. The mother of the present tenants Tmt. Rathinam was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 220. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 737 of 1976 under Section 4 of the Act for determining the fair rent. The rent controller determined the fair rent at Rs. 738 per month. The tenant filed an appeal H.R.A. No. 412 of 1982 as against the order passed in H.R.C. No. 737 of 1976. In the appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority determined the fair rent at Rs. 691 per month payable from ...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Rajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad318
ORDER1. A. No. 1600/1995 and O.A. Nos. 282/1995 and 283/1995. The averments in the affidavit in all the three applications are similar and it is as follows: The deponent is a third party. He was born in Kerala in 1958. One Koshy and his wife were neighbours of the applicant. They have brought him to Madras and was bringing him up as their foster son. Koshy died on 4-2-1979. He had purchased the schedule mentioned property on 16-6-1953. His wife had executed a sale deed in respect of the first floor of the said property and it is the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner had a joint account with Mariam Koshy in Canara Bank, Kelly. The petitioner was residing in the same house. In the Voters' list as well as in the Ration Card, his name is in the said premises. He is now employed in M.R.F. as a driver. After the death of Mr. Koshy, one Alexander and his wife who are related to Koshy, came to Miidras and they were permitted to be in the premises by Mr. Dr. Mariam Koshy. Mariam K...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S.G. and Sons Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: [1997]223ITR831(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot operate as a charging section for bringing to tax the 'excess' referred to therein is sustainable in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 11(4), the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the items of disallowances totaling Rs. 1,54,667 for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. The assessee is an association of persons which has been granted exemption under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a charitable trust, engaged in charitable activities. There were several distinct lines of activities such as run...
Tag this Judgment!John Mathew Vs. P.D. Rajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC733
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. A. No. 1600 of 1995 and O.A. No.s 282 of 1995 and 283 of 1995. The averments in the affidavit in all the three applications are similar and it is follows: The deponent is a third party. He was born in Kerala in 1958. One Koshy and his wife were neighbours of the applicant. They have brought him to Madras and was bringing him up as their foster son. Koshy died on 4.2.1979. He had purchased the schedule mentioned property on 16.6.1953. His wife had executed a sale deed in respect of the first floor of the said property and it is the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner had a joint account with Mariam Koshy in Canara Bank, Kellys. The petitioner was residing in the same house. In the voters as well as in the Ration Card, his name is in the said premises. He is now employed in M.R.F. as a driver. After the death of Mr. Koshy, one Alexander and his wife who are related to Koshy, came to Madras and they were permitted to be in the premises by Dr. Mariam Koshy....
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatachalam (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Special Tribunal for Co-o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ69
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 11.3.1985 passed by the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 57 of 1980. That was an appeal preferred against the award dated 6.6.1978 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ootacamund, second respondent herein in A.R.C. No. 1856/76-77. The second respondent passed an award against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,188.08 being the value of the stock deficit occurred in the oil men section of the petitioner society as on 31.12.1976 and 30.1.1977. The first respondent affirmed the said award by judgment dated 11.3.1985 in C.M.A. No. 57 of 1980. Of course, in this case, the petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record who are petitioners 2 to 8. It may also be pointed out here that the deceased petitioner was also prosecuted by the third respondent society on the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bodhraj Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad300
ORDER1. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamas, directing the respondents to accept the payment of additional security deposit in twelve equal instalments from him for the service connection having Account No. 21,40.282, at Door No. 45/2/A Appasamy Koil Street, Thiruvottiyur, Madras-19.3. The petitioner is doing business of manufacturing Ice Slabs which is used for Chemical Industries and also used to preserve sea food. He has set up the unit at Madras and his factory is a small scale industry. It is stated that he got the electricity service connection in April, 1994. He had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards initial security deposit. On 30-6-1995, the third respondent sent ademand letter to t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumarathal Vs. Balasubramania Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad277; (1996)IMLJ164
ORDER1. This revision is against theconcurrent finding of the Courts belowwhereby the first respondent herein wasadjudicated as insolvent. The legality of thesaid finding is challenged in this revision. 2. The material averments are, what the petitioner herein obtained a decree against thefirst respondent herein in O.S. No. 243 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Pollachi and on the date of the filing of, the insolvency petition, a sum of Rs. 13,467.75 p. was due to her. 3. In the execution of the said decree, the petitioner herein attached the properties of the first respondent, and when the property was brought for sale, the insolvency petition was filed by the first respondent herein, to adjudicate him as an insolvent. In that petition, he has stated that he is an agriculturist and that he has no source of income. He is the owner in possession of B Schedule property, owing an area of nearly ten acres, with a newly dug well and also a 5 H.P. Motor. It is said therein ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Gani Vs. Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ948Mad; (1996)IMLJ52
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent in Memo No. 321/Admn. 1/A-5/F/Suspension/95, dated 6.7.1995, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to treat the period of suspension as duty and grant all other attendant benefits to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who joined the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1991 as Assistant Engineer (Electrical), was suspended under Regulation 9(a)(i), (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), by an order dated 6.7.1995. An allegation was made by one A. Sekaran stating that the petitioner and on Jagannathan demanded a sum of Rs. 100 each and informed the said A. Sekaran that unless the petitioner and the said Jagannathan were paid Rs. 100 each, no electricity connection would be provided to his fat...
Tag this Judgment!V. Suppan Vs. Meenammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC157
N. Arumugham, J.1. The respondent-husband in Maintenance Case No. 12/ 92 and Crl. M.P. No. 1196/93 therein on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Dindigul, aggrieved at the order passed on 1.6.1993 allowing the said miscellaneous petition to recall witness examined already and mark some important document, is canvassing the present revision for its want of legality and propriety.2. On the ground of desertion and inability to maintain herself, the respondent-wife herein has filed the original maintenance case before the learned Judicial Magistrate in M.C. No. 12/92 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the petitioner. It was resisted by him inter alia contending that she is not entitled to claim any maintenance and disputed the marriage as well as the alleged means position. It appears from the case records and the impugned order that recording of the legal evidence on behalf of the respective parties were over. At this stage, a petition u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »