Chennai Court December 1995 Judgments
S. Mahalingam and ors. Vs. Nedungadi Bank Limited, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ158
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 199 of 1987 in an unnumbered plaint, by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Defendants 3 to 6 in the un-numbered plaint are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 47,493.65 with interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. The plaintiff is Nedungadi Bank Limited, Madurai. The plaint was returned due to certain defects as pointed out by the office of the court of the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. The plaint could not be re-presented within the time stipulated. There was a delay of 633 days in re-presenting the plaint. The matter came up by way of check slip before the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. The advocate appearing for the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that the plaint was returned and return was taken. In his office the plaint and other connected papers got mixed up with other papers. When the papers relating to one...
Tag this Judgment!Kasiliya Vagaiyara Sri Rama Navami Uthsava Dharma Sabhai Through Its P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ317
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petition premises belongs to a private religious institution. The tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 450 payable according to the English calendar month. The tenant is running a printing press in the petition premises under the name and style of 'Paramount Printers'. It was agreed between the parties that the rent should be paid on or before fifth day of every succeeding month. The tenant has paid an advance of Rs. 1,000. The tenant paid the rent till the end of April, 1980. Subsequently the tenant paid the rent on 3.12.1980. The tenant did not pay the rent for a period of seven months from May, 1980 to November, 1980, amounting to Rs. 3,600. Therefore according to the landlord the ...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Viswanathan Ginners Private Co. Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas467(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in E. A. No. 104 of 1986 in E. P. No. 42 of 1985 in O. S. No. 14 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. The petitioner herein is a third party. 2. The plaintiff-bank filed O. S. No. 14 of 1983 to recover the amount due under the mortgage from the defendants. In the suit preliminary decree was passed on August 31, 1983, and the final decree was passed on December 14, 1984. According to the final decree passed a sum of Rs. 6,02,932.95 is due under the decree to the plaintiff from the defendants. Interest was awarded at the rate of 19.5% on the principal amount from the date of decree till the date realisation. The principal amount is stated to be Rs. 4,02,932.95. In the meanwhile, the judgment debtors/defendants sold the hypothecated property to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein deposited a sum of Rs. 4,02,932.95 and requested the court to give credit of this amount towards principal am...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC51; 1996(82)ELT462(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondent has taken notice. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 23-11-1995 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. 4289 of 1995. Learned single Judge has directed that a sum of Rs. 27,74,339/- should be refunded to the respondent with interest at 15% per annum to the respondent. 3. Facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the direction issued by the learned single Judge is sustainable or not, are no more in dispute. On 27-5-1993, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranipet rejected the claim made by the respondent that it would be entitled to a concessional rate of excise duty. The petitioner's claim was that the difference between the concessional rate and the excise duty paid at 15% should be refunded. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred appeal in Appeal 34/93(M) before the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR753(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the debenture redemption reserve created by the assessee is not a 'provision to meet a known liability' but is a 'reserve' to be taken into account for capital computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The assessee-company had issued 35,000 debentures of Rs. 100 each, totalling Rs. 35,00,000. The assessee executed a debenture trust deed on December 28, 1970, which provided for creation of a debenture redemption reserve. As on the 1st day of the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1974-75, the reserve had accumulated to Rs. 15,00,000. While completing the surtax assessment, the Income-tax Officer held that it is only a provision to meet a known liability and hence it...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Limited, Ece Construction Group, Pondicherry Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1125]; (1996)IMLJ192
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry State, taking notice on directions from this Court. Since the matter is directly covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Ion Exchange (India) Limited v. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Salem, : (1996)ILLJ283Mad , the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing even at this stage of admission. 2. This writ petition relates to the interpretation of the word 'occupier' found in the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner company is situated at Mylam Road. They are proposing to put up 'Re-rolling Mill' at its premises at Mylam Road, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. The petitioner is engaged in the production of Angles, challens, for steel rods and it proposes to employ about 150 workmen. The Board of Directors of the petitioner company made an application dated 27-10-1995 to the 1st respondent herein, the Chief Inspector of Factories, ...
Tag this Judgment!M.D.K. Ramalingam (Died) and Five ors. Vs. M.D.K. Thirumalaiappan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC741
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 543 of 1995 in O.S. No. 64 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli (Order passed by Sub Judge, Tenkasi - Principal Subordinate Judge (in-charge). Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the L. Rs., of the deceased 1st plaintiff are the petitioners herein. Plaintiffs 1 and 4 petitioners 1 and 2 herein filed E.A. No. 543 of 1985 in O.S. No. 64 of 1970 to send for the sum of Rs. 1,90,101.04 from the Indian Bank, Rajapalayam Branch, to be paid to the plaintiffs 1 and 4. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 4 in the suit. The petitioners, their brothers and their deceased mother filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to 1/6th share, along with the defendants 1 to 3, which represents the surplus income derived from the lands in Appaneri village. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the same was reversed by the lower appellate Court (District Judge, Tirunelveli) in A....
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Limited, Ece Construction Group Vs. the Chief Inspec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ192
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry State, taking notice on directions from this Court. Since the matter is directly covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Ion Exchange (India) Limited v. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Salem : (1996)ILLJ283Mad , the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing even at this stage of admission.2. This writ petition relates to the interpretation of the word 'occupier' found in the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner company is situated at Mylam Road. They are proposing to put up 'Re-rolling Mill' at its premises at Mylam Road, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. The petitioner is engaged in the production of Angles, challens, for steel rods and it proposes to employ about 150 workmen. The Board of Directors of the petitioner company made an application dated 27.10.1995 to the 1st respondent herein, the Chief Inspector of Factories, to a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Veeraraghavan Alias R.V. Raghavan and anr. Vs. R. Rajendran and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ63
Srinivasan, J.1. The first respondent has filed the suit C.S. No. 1557 of 1995 for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.5.1991 entered into with respondents 2 to 5. Pending the suit, he has prayed for injunction in O.A. No. 1109 of 1995 restraining the respondents as well as the appellant from interfering with his possession of the suit land. The learned single Judge has granted the prayer and the aggrieved 5th defendant in the suit is the appellant before us.2. The appellant disputes the case of the plaintiff and also contends that there was an agreement for sale of the suit property in his favour in 1991 and to enforce the same, he filed suit C.S.No. 65 of 1994 in this Court. A compromise was entered in the suit and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. According to the appellant, he was put in possession of the said property even under his agreement of sale and he had even erected a fence around the property. It is his further case that at the time of the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!T. Doraibabu and anr. Vs. Sri Sundara Vinayagar, Sri Selva Vinayagar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ24
Srinivasan, J.1. Pursuant to our orders dated 3.11.1995 and 29.11.1995, the election officer has held the election and declared the results. He has produced the relevant records before us along with his report. There are 31 enclosures. On a perusal of the enclosures, it is seen that the election officer had taken more interest than expected of him, and conducted the election in an excellent and exemplary manner. We have no hesitation to say that he has performed his duty in the best manner possible and certainly it could not have been done better by anybody else. We are very happy to place on record our appreciation and also gratitude to the election officer, Mr.P.B. Sethuraman, Advocate, Madras who has finished his work so magnificently.2. When the plaintiff s counsel prayed for time to file objections to the report of the election officer, we were not inclined to grant time. We requested the counsel to state his objections. One of the objections raised is that the election officer ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »