Chennai Court October 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.
Kannaiyan Vs. Subramania Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC577
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller District Munsif, Kumbakonam dated 16.8.1995 in I.A. No 71 of 1993 in RCOP. No. 20 of 1987, whereunder the Court below has allowed an amendment application by the respondent/landlord introducing additional ground of denial of title also a ground for eviction. The application has been opposed by the petitioner/tenant before the Court below, both on the ground mat the Rent Controller has no power to order amendment and on the ground that it is belated and that the lethargy and indifference exhibited by the respondent/landlord should have been properly taken into account to reject the claim. Overruling the objection, the amendment as prayed for the respondent /petitioner before the Court below, was ordered. Hence the above revision.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Vanchinathan vehemently contended, reiterating / the stand taken in the Court below that the Rent Controller is no...
A. Abdul Gani Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ52
ORDERAR. 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/A5/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 one 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 father A...
Sathruppa Naicker and Others Vs. Ramaswamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad290; (1996)IMLJ501
1. Having failed in both the Courts below, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal against the concurrent dismissal of their suit for declaration of their alleged title to the suit property and for possession thereof.2. The 11th defendant is one Sri Sivaramasubbu Swami Madalaya Kalvi Kazhagam represented by its President and theother defendants are said to be members of the said Kazhagam. All the said defendants are respondents herein. Both the Courts have held that the 11th defendant has perfected title by adverse possession to the suit property, it being in adverse possession right from 1944.3. The suit property admittedly originally belonged to one Ramasami, the husband of ore Parakkammal and the father of one Uthiammal. After the death of Ramasami, the said Parakkammal and Uthiammal were in possession of the property. Admittedly Parakkammal died in 1911 and Uthiammal, the daughter of Ramasami died in 1932. Both of them were only life estate holders after the death of Ramas...
Sirukalathur Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2369]
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the state of admission of this appeal, the contesting second Respondent is represented through a counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the writ appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated March 3, 1995, passed by the learned single judge in W. M. P. No. 5181 of 1994, filed in W. P. No. 1979 of 1994. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the award dated March 4, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, directing reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages. Pending disposal of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on February 8, 1994 in W. M. P. No. 1979 of 1994 in the following terms : 'Reinstatement of R. Raju (second respondent) as ordered by the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli (first respondent), in its award dated March 4, 1993 and made in I. D. No. 25 of 1992 is stayed pending disposal of the writ petition subject to the following condit...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.N.A. Ahamed Kabeer and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC468
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The department is the petitioner herein. P. N. A. Ahamed Kabeer and Company is the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in grams, paddy, etc. The assessing officer checked the accounts and found that there was a difference of Rs. 6,64,164 between the turnover reported in the returns and that found in the accounts. It was due to non-disclosure of first sales of black gram for Rs. 434 and purchase value of grams of Rs. 6,63,730 sent for consignment sales in other States out of first purchase, taxable under section 7-A. For the non-disclosure of the turnover of Rs. 6,63,730 taxable under section 7-A the assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 13,283. Aggrieved against the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the levy of penalty. As against the said order the assessee filed second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal the department filed a deferment peti...
A.S. Mani (Deceased) by Lrs. Thirunavukkarasu and ors. Vs. Udipi Hari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC652; (1996)IMLJ171
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The three tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlord is a partnership concern. The landlord filed petition for eviction against each of the tenants under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition premises is situated at No. 111, Wall Tax Road, Park Town, Madras 600003. According to the landlord, in the upstairs portion on the front side, the tenants arc in occupation. On the rear side of the building, the landlord is carrying on business by running a coffee hotel. In the first floor, the landlord is also conducting a lodging house. Both the businesses arc increasing periodically. For the purpose of expanding the business run by the landlord, the portion in the occupation of the tenants are required by way of additional accommodation. Since there is insufficiency of space, the landlord is compelled to reduce his customers. Considering the nature of the business run by the landlord, the front portion would be o...
Sathruppa Naicker and anr. Vs. Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ501
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed in both the courts below, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal against the concurrent dismissal of their suit for declaration of their alleged title to the suit property and for possession thereof.2. The 11th defendant is one Sri Sivaramasubbu Swami Madalaya Kalvi Kazhagam represented by its President and the other defendants are said to be members of the said Kazhagam. All the said defendants are respondents herein. Both the courts have held that the 11th defendant has perfected title by adverse possession to the suit property, it being in adverse possession right from 1944.3. The suit property admittedly originally belonged to one Ramasami, the husband of one Parakkammal and the father of one Uthiammal. After the death of Ramasami, the said Parakkammal and Uthiammal were in possession of the property. Admittedly Parakkammal died in 1911 and Uthiammal the daughter of Ramasami died in 1932. Both of them were only life estate holders after the ...
A.S. Mani (Deceased) by L.Rs. Thirunavukkarasu and ors. Vs. Udipi Hari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ171
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The three tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlord is a partnership concern. The landlord filed petition for eviction against each of the tenants under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition premises is situated at No. 111, Wall Tax Road, Park Town, Madras 600003. According to the landlord, in the upstairs portion on the front side, the tenants are in occupation. On the rear side of the building, the landlord is carrying on business by running a coffee hotel. In the first floor, the landlord is also conducting a lodging house. Both the businesses are increasing periodically. For the purpose of expanding the business run by the landlord, the portion in the occupation of the tenants are required by way of additional accommodation. Since there is insufficiency of space, the landlord is compelled to reduce his customers. Considering the nature of the business run by the landlord, the front portion would be o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.M.N. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR451(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the AAC was justified in confining the income under the head 'Other sources' to Rs. 3,54,110 as found in the capital account of the assessee instead of the peak credit of Rs. 4,47,741 as per books (2) Whether the Tribunal's view that the ITO having rejected the books of account while determining the income from business, should not have relied upon the same books of account for the purpose of making addition towards unexplained credit under the head 'Other sources' is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment relates to the year 1973-74. The accounting year is the year ended 31st March, 1973. The assessee failed to comply with the notice issued by the ITO under s. 142(1). Accordingly...
P. Raghupathi Naicker Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ508
ORDER1. Writ Appeal No. 575 of 1990has been filed against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 4.8.1989 made in W.P. No. 10441 of 1989, whereunder the learned single Judge has chosen to dismiss in limine, the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent Government in G.O.Rt. No. 381, dated 17.5.1989 rejecting the revision filed by the appellant on 22.7.1985 challenging the order of the second respondent herein in Pro.R.Dis. No. 45486/84 (L-), dated 11.10.1984 appointing an Executive Officer to Sri Kanniamman temple, Manapakkam Village, Chengalpattu District.2. The temple in question was originally said to be founded by one Venkatachala Naicker, the great-grandfather of the appellant and from the year 1967 onwards the appellant claims to have come under the management as hereditary trustee on the death of his father Pravalavarna Naicker on 26.6.1962. Though the appellant has claimed that he is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »