Chennai Court November 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.
P.R.S. Palanichami Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR483(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by the fifth respondent, third party in E.A. No. 107 of 1987 in E.P. No. 144 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, against the order passed in the said E.A. No. 107 of 1987, dated April 11, 1988. 2. The first respondent herein - Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dindigul, who in one of the decree-holders, has filed the said execution application for payment out, of a sum of Rs. 1,13,000 said to be due by the deceased judgment-debtor. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are also decree-holders along with the first respondent. The eighth respondent is the subsequent purchaser of the property belonging to the judgment-debtor. A sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was realised after the sale of the property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The said amount was brought to the execution court by virtue of the execution petition filed by some other person. Out...
Vaidyanatha Gurukkal Vs. the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ203
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. At the time of Inam Settlement, grant of 20 acres and 80 cents in Marudur village in the name of Sri Visveswara Vinayagar temple was confirmed by the Inam Commission and patta was granted to the Archaka. The Archaka was recognised as Dharmakartha. The lands were in the possession of the Archaka. Archaka-cum-trusteeship of the temple has been hereditarily remaining with the plaintiffs family for generations. Kulandaian was Archaka trustee when the grant was confirmed. On his death, Kandasami his second son became the Archaka trustee since Subramanian his brother pre-deceased him. Kandasami was managing the temple and was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. He died as a bachelor. His elder brother's son Kulandaisami died issueless. Kulandaisami's sister is Thayammal whose son-in-law is one Nallasami. The plaintiff is Nallasami's son. The plaintiff was helping Kulandaisami in his duties as Archaka trustee. Kulandaisami had executed a Wil...
A. Guruprasad Vs. T. Neelakandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1892
ORDER1. The applicant in his affidavit contends as follows : The applicant has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the name 'First/1st' for conducting any business relating to the computer and pass-off their business. In O.A. No. 151/1995 interim injunction was prayed for. On 20th February, 1995, this Court has granted interim injunction, restraining the respondent till 28-2-1995 from using the trade name 'First Computers/1st Computers' or the expression 'First/1st' in Relation to its Computer business. On 28-2-1995, after enquiry, this Court has reserved orders. On 14-3-1995, this Court has passed orders, making the interim injunction absolute and dismissing the application for vacating the injunction. On 22-3-1995, the defendant moved O.S. Appeal No. 74/1995 before the Division Bench of this Court and prayed for stay of the operation of the Order of Interim injunction. The Stay was not granted. In spite of injunction granted from 20-5-1995, th...
Julaiga Begum Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC29
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. These two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the argument advanced is identical. Further, both the petitioners, who are the detenus themselves, are allegedly involved in the same ground crime. Mrs. Julaiga Begum, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1118 of 1995, is the mother of Saira Banu, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1119 of 1995. By two different orders of detention dated 30.6.1995, passed by the first respondent, it exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (Central Act 52 of 1974), these two petitioners have been preventively detained with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods in future.2. Brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned orders may have to be stated: On 27.5.1995, these two petitioners, holders of Singapore Passports were bound for Singapore by flight No. SQ 409, from Madras International Airpor...
K. Sahara Banu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC116
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. Petitioner Sahara Banu is the wife of Kaleel Rahman, who has been detained, in pursuance of an order dated 28.6.1995, passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (Central Act 52 of 1974), with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods in future.2. Facts in brief, which led to the passing of the impugned order will have to be stated. Detenu Kaleel Rahman, holder of Indian Passport, was bound for Colombo by Flight IC 573 on 4.6.1995. At the Airport, on the basis of specific information, Intelligence Officers, intercepted the detenu, while he was waiting in the passenger lounge, for boarding the aircraft, after immigration, customs and security check. The detenu was questioned in the presence of witnesses, if he was in possession, of any foreign currency either in his baggage or on his person. The reply was in the...
E. Senthilkumar and Others Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)IMLJ465
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. When the L.P.A. came up for hearing before this Court on March 8, 1995, Writ Petition No. 11680 of 1993 was directed to be posted along with L.P.A. Accordingly, both the matters are posted together and the learned counsel appearing on both sides in both the matters are heard. 2. As the decision in the writ petition will have a bearing on the L.P.A., we first take up the writ petition for consideration. 3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras-17 (first respondent) bearing R.C. No. 2057/92/C-4, dated February 25, 1993 and also the order dated April 28, 1993 passed by the Special Officer. The Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kanchecpuram (second respondent), insofar as they relate to the denial of backwages. 4. The first respondent has passed the aforesaid impugned order in the purported, exercise of his powers under Sec. 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative-Societies Act, 1983 (...
Ranjan Devasahayam Vs. Hindustan Bible Institute of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ510
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant/tenant has filed this second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below concurrently granting relief of possession of the suit building, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, Hindustan Bible Institute India.2. Only two submissions were argued before me in this Second Appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant. One is, the courts below have erred in having concluded that G.O.Ms. No. 2000, Home dated 16th August, 1976 issued under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply to the suit building. In other words, according to him, the said G.O. would not apply to the said building and therefore, if at all, the plaintiff could go before the Rent Controller to get an eviction order against the appellant from the suit building and that the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try the present suit. T...
E. Senthilkumar and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Sociaties a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ465
K.A. Swami, J.1. When the L.P.A. came up for hearing before this Court on 8.3.1995, Writ Petition No. 11680 of 1993 was directed to be posted along with L.P.A. Accordingly, both the matters are posted together and the learned Counsel appearing on both sides in both the matters are heard.2. As the decision in the writ petition will have a bearing on the L.P.A., we first take up the writ petition for consideration.3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras-17 (first respondent) bearing R.C. No. 2057/92/C-4, dated 25.2.1993 and also the order dated 28.4.1993 passed by the Special Officer, The Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kancheepuraam (second respondent), insofar as they relate to the denial of back wages.4. The first respondent has passed the aforesaid impugned order in the purported, exercise of his powers under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act of 1...
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (A) Department Vs. P. Pauliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ206
Govardhan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: Sethupathiyoor is a small hamlet in Thengamputhoor village of Agasteeswaram taluk, Kanyakumari District. The plaintiff owns a private family temple 'Sri Uchinimahali Amman temple' in that village. The houses of the members of the family to whom the temple belong are situate in one acre of land around the temple. The temple is a private temple. While so, the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department took steps to apply the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The plaintiff has therefore filed an application under Section 63 of the Act the learned Deputy Commissioner negatived the claim of the plaintiff. Against the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the ...
Vasu Vs. Saroja Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ339
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Polur dated 23.8.1994 in I.A. No. 89 of 1994 dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The petitioner in his affidavit contends as follows: The plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner and others for declaration and for recovery of possession. The petitioner came to know of the same only the previous day when one Ponmudi came to him and quarrelled with him stating that he had sold a property in dispute to him. The property belonged to the father of the petitioner. One Dhanammal has filed the suit claiming a right in the property. Ponmudi the subsequent purchaser of the property from Sundaram Pillai to whom the petitioner has sold the suit property. On verification, the petitioner came to know that he was set ex parte on 3.5.1988 without any service of summons or notice. The petitioner has filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Even thoug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »