Chennai Court December 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.
Devarajan and ors. Vs. Lingaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ370
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent-landlord filed eviction petitions in R.C.O.P. Nos. 21 of 1994, 15 of 1994 and 18 of 1994 respectively before the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu for evicting the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioners have received the summons in the R.C.O.Ps. and they engaged counsel and filed a memo to the effect that the petitions may be allowed without costs by granting six months time to the petitioners for vacating the premises. On the basis of the memo, the Rent Controller has passed order of eviction on 9.1.1995. After the six months period lapsed, the respondent has taken out E.P., proceedings to recover possession. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the applications I.A. Nos. 644,642 and 646 of 1995 respectively for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order in R.C.O.Ps.2. The petitioners' averment in the affidavit filed in support of ...
Ravichandran Vs. N. Sulaiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC3
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The view expressed by the Appellate Authority that the appeal filed by the respondent herein, without making a deposit as required by Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is maintainable is erroneous. The appellate Authority has placed reliance in Raviram v. Somasundaram : (1984)1MLJ52 . He has overlooked that the matter has been considered in detail in several other judgments of this Court including S.K. Rajapandian v. A. Kesavan (1991) 2 L.W. 453. In that judgment, I have referred to the judgment in Raviram v. Somasundaram : (1984)1MLJ52 and distinguished the same. I have followed the judgment of a Division Bench in Kuppanha Chettiar v. Ramachandran AIR 1981 Mad 35. Unfortunately, the lower appellate Court has not taken note of any of those judgments. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority holding that appeal is maintainable and that there should be an order of stay are unsustainable.2. It is brought to my notice that a...
Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. Vs. Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd., Glue and Acid Plants ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC148
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, O.S.No. 721 of 1994, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Poonamallee. The respondent herein had filed the above suit praying for an injunction restraining the defendant therein from removing the machinery, raw materials from the factory premises during the subsistence of industrial dispute pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The respondent also filed an application, I.A.No.2854 of 1994, seeking for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The trial court has granted interim injunction and only against the said order the revision has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower court has granted interim injunction on September 8, 1994, without following the statutory requirements prescribed under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as it has failed to give any reaso...
Seetha and ors. Vs. Rani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ371
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendants have preferred this civil revision against the dismissal of their C.M.P. No. 796 of 1995 praying for excusing the delay of 39 days in filing the interlocutory application to restore the C.M.A. No. 19 of 1995 filed by them. In the suit ex parte decree was passed as early as 17.2.1992 whereby the plaintiff who are widow and son of the deceased employee in question could secure the terminal benefits from the employer of the deceased, to the extent of about Rs. 40,000. The petitioner's herein filed I.A. No. 10410 of 1993 to set aside the ex parte decree. (No doubt the other I.A. No. 1548 of 1993 filed by them to excuse the delay of 306 days in filing the application to set aside the decree is said to have been allowed). The said I.A. No. 10410 of 1993 was dismissed on 11.1.1995. As against the said dismissal the abovesaid C.M.A. No. 19 of 1995 was filed by the petitioners herein. But that was allowed to be dismissed for default on 21.4.1995. And that is...
A.M. Krishnamurthy Vs. Sokab Products Private Limited by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ218
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1994, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam.2. The suit filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, petitioner herein, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties either by themselves or by their representatives or successors-intitle or by anyone claiming through him till 19.10.2002; for costs of suit; and for other reliefs.3. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1004 of 1994 for an interim injunction. The material averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are, that the first plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act 1956. Its Certificate of Incorporation is No. 18-17521 of 1989, on the file of Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, and the same was registered on 9.6.1989. The main objects to be pursued by the plaintiffs a...
S. Ramapandian Vs. State Represented by the District Crime Branch, Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)357; 1996CriLJ3331
ORDER1. After getting the admission of this revision, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram, in Cri.M.B. No. 56/95 in C.C. No. 88/93, dated 10-5-1995, in a petition filed under S. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by and on behalf of the revision petitioner herein, declining to discharge the petitioner, who was the accused subsequently added by filing an amended charge-sheet in the above calendar case before the trial Court, as insisted by the Bar, the revision was heard in full on merits an it is disposed of by passing the following order. 2. The petitioner by name Ramapandian was working as a Sub-Inspector in Baluchettychatram Police Station between 5-9-1990 and 21-11-1991 and during that time the first accused by name one Sivaprakasam was working as a Grade I Police Constable in the same police station. In connection with certain criminal activities committed by the said Grade I Police Constable while he was entrusted with the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carburettors Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR680(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1976-77 for our opinion under section 256(1) 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 sum of Rs. 56,567 paid to Zenith Carburettors Limited for obtaining the drawings and the sum of Rs. 15,000 being travelling expenses for procuring the said drawing should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and the Income-tax Officer was not correct in treating as capital expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a company which manufactures carburettors. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 71,657 consisting of two items as relating to capital expenditure. The first item is with regard to the technical charges of Rs. 56,657 paid to Zenith Carburettors Limited, U. K., for obta...
V. Sasitharan and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ647Mad
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19967 of 1994 is a practising advocate in this Court. According to him, the writ petition has been filed by him without any motive against the respondents and the same has been filed in good faith in order to safeguard the constitutional provisions, judicial principles and public justice. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of quo-warranto to the 4th respondent Thiru N. Haribaskar as to in what capacity he is holding the office of Chief Secretaryship and discharging its functions, after November 30, 1994.2. W.P. No. 20297 of 1994 is filed by Mr. K. Rajaram, former Speaker of the Tamil, Nadu Legislative Assembly, former Member of Parliament and a former Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the extension of service given to Thiru N. Haribaskar, Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to him, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu overlooking the constitutional provisions and the Tamil Nadu G...
Somiah Naidu and 2 ors. Vs. Chinna Boosiammal and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC13; (1996)IIMLJ511
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above second appeals arise out of the final decree proceedings in one and the same suit, O.S.No.59 of 1963, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, wherein the first respondent herein has filed the suit for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share for the plaintiff, for future mesne profits and for costs. The trial court passed a preliminary' decree dated 31.3.1965 in the following terms:(1) That of the suit property item 13 (house property), item 1 and S.Nos.278/3 and 278/4 shall be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares and that the plaintiff shall be allotted one such separate share of the same;(2) That the suit, in regard to other items be and is hereby dismissed;(3) That mere be no order as to costs (Plaintiffs cost Rs. 169- 00; costs of defendants 6 to 8, Rs. 102.25;) and(4) That the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for appointment of commissioner for divisio...
T.G. Elumalai and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC8
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ilias Ali, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, taking notice for the respondents.2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the 1st respondent in F. No. R.76/CHA dated 23/24.11.1995 revoking the licence given to the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under Regulation 21(1) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations). By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has revoked the Custom House Agent Licence No. R.76/CHA issued to the petitioner forth with and also forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.3. In the writ petition, several points have been taken by the petitioner challenging the impugned order. It is seen from the impugned order that the proceedings were initiated in the year 1983 and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »