Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Nelson and Another Vs. P. Rangantahan Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad313; 1995(1)CTC446
ORDER1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1986, on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent filed eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner has committed wilful default in paying the rent.3. The material averments are as follows :The agreed rent as per the rent deed executed by the petitioner was Rs. 5,000/- per mensem. But the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1980 before the Rent Control Court, Vellore, for fixation of fair rent. The application was filed on 10-3-1980. On 30-1-1982, the Rent Controller fixed the fair reni at Rs. 1050/- per mensem. Against the decision, two appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority as C.M.A. Nos. 63 and 64 of 1982. Both the appeals were heard jointly and the Appellate Authority modified the order on 5-1-1985 and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,100/-. Against the decision the tenant filed C.R.P. No. 2437 of 1985, and, as per Ex.8.4 dated 29-7-1985, the operation of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Vs. Sundram and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3418; 1995(1)CTC509
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee Chengai-MGR District (E) in C.C. No. 33/94 dismissing the complaint under S. 204(4) of the Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, for the offences under Ss. 347, 350, 352, 506, Part II and 384 read with S. 34, IPC. The complaint was taken on file, the sworn statement was recorded and notice was ordered to the accused persons on 11-5-1994 for the appearance of the accused on 29-6-1994. But the revision petitioner complainant did not pay the process fee for the issue of the summons to the accused persons till the adjourned date and therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate on 29-6-1984, having found that no process fee was paid, dismissed the complaint under S. 204(4), Cr.P.C. It is against this order of dismissal, the complainant has come forward with this revision. 3. The learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Cb, Cid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC300
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This petition is under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First information Report No. 210/91 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.2. According to the petitioner, who is the accused, as the complaint given by the respondent complainant before Virugambakkam Police had been already referred to and a notice also was sent to the complainant, he cannot file another complaint before the Inspector of Police, CB. C.I.D., who has registered the case in A.F.I.R. No. 210/91 for investigation and the second investigation is not permissible under law.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.A. Selvam, would submit that the respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee on 2.3.90 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, forwarded the complaint to the Virugambakkam Police under Section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation but after investigation as the Virugambakkam Pol...
Tag this Judgment!AmeeruddIn and Four ors. Vs. Premakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC340
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Both the revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners are the tenants. The respondent filed Rcop Nos. 285 and 287 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Coimbatore, against the two tenants/revision petitioners for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Her contention was that the building was on old one and not in a good condition and that the same is required for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Both the tenants contended inter alia, that the petition building was in a good condition and did not require demolition at all, that the landlady demanded fabulous rent and consequent upon her failure to get such enhanced rent, she had come to court with the vexatious petitions contending untenable grounds, that the need is ...
Tag this Judgment!Gift Tax Officer Vs. Late R. Sambasiva Rao by Lrs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mad)569
ORDERS. KANNAN, AM. :This Departmental appeal is directed against the order dt. 29th March, 1988 of the CIT(A)-VII, Madras relating to the asst. yr. 1982-83.2. The material and undisputed facts of the case are that during his life-time one Sambasiva Rao was running a business under the name and style of M/s Krishnaveni Ink Factory. The said concern was run as the proprietary concern of the said Sambasiva Rao till 31st March, 1977. At that time his two sons, viz., Subba Rao and Sridhar Rao, were his employees.On 1st April, 1977, it is a matter of record, a partnership firm, consisting of the said Sambasiva Rao and his two sons and his daughter, all having equal shares, was constituted for the purposes of running the said business. Thereupon the firm was brought to tax.3. Yet another material fact may be noticed. At all relevant points of time the business under the name and style of M/s Krishnaveni Ink Factory was carried in a house property situated at 751, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Gift-tax Officer Vs. R. Sambasive Rao.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD485(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri S. Kannan, AM-This departmental appeal is directed against the order dated 29-3-1988 of the CIT (Appeals)-VII, Madras, relating to the assessment year 1982-83.2. The material and undisputed facts of the case are that during his life time one Sambasiva Rao was running a business under the name and style of M/s. Krishnaveni Ink Factory. The said concern was run as the proprietary concern of the said Sambasiva Rao till 31-3-1977. At that time his two sons, viz., Subba Rao and Sridhar Rao, were his employees.On 1-4-1977, it is a matter of record, a partnership firm, consisting of the said Sambasiva Rao and his two sons and his daughter, all having equal shares, was constituted for the purposes of running the said business. Thereupon, the firm was brought to tax.3. Yet another material fact may be noticed. At all relevant points of time the business under the name and style of M/s. Krishnaveni Ink Factory was carried in a house property situated at 751, Thiruvottiyur High Road...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (Twad) and Others Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad28
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. These three appeals are preferred against a common order dt. 7-12-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 11668 to 11670 of 1994. The learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following direction: 'For all the reasons stated above, the write petitions are allowed in part and the petitioner is directed to invoke Clause 51 of the Contract and refer all the dispute and (sic) ferences arising out of the contracts if question in additional the disputes already raised (sic) to the their claims, statements and other documents before the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Original Side of this (sic) under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on the application of the petitioner (sic) the respondents shall not invoke the Bank Gurantee and maintain the (sic). There will be (sic).In all these (sic) the 1st respondent (sic) sought (sic) the order of termination of contracts which were given for the purpose of execution of certain works...
Tag this Judgment!P. Viswanathan Alias Visu Vs. S. Chandra Sekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas21(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The present action is one initiated under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 12 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. 2. The foundational facts giving rise to the present action may briefly be stated thus : (a) One P. Vishwanathan alias Visu (petitioner-accused-drawer) issued a cheque dated October 12, 1992, in favour of one S. Chandrasekaran (respondent-complainant) in discharge of a prior obligation. The cheque when presented for realisation by the complainant through his bankers, Canara Bank, Nagercoil, on October 12, 1992, had been dishonoured on the same day due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner-accused-drawer. The matter of dishonour was informed to the petitioner-accused-drawer, who, in turn, again requested the respondent-complainant to present the cheque against for encashment and he would arrange sufficiency of funds in his accounts for honouring the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboova Beevi Vs. Nataraja Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC224
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 27.4.1992 in E.P.No. 294/1988 in O.S. No. 343 of 1982.2. The Execution Petition is for delivery of 88 cents in R.S.No. 201/1 which is in R.S.No. 201/l-A.. The respondent has objected to the delivery of the property contending that the decree is an ex partc one which cannot be enforced and this particular extent of 88 cents is not in the four boundaries mentioned in the petition.3. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned District Munsif has rejected the objection raised by the respondent and directed delivery of the property through the Commissioner with a direction to find out whether the property described in the petition is in accordance with the decree to be delivered.4. It is against this order, the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would argue that the order passed by the execut...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Muthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC279; (1995)IIMLJ447
ORDER1. Mr. S.K. Sundaram, Advocate was appearing for the petitioner. At his instance, the matter was adjourned and several occasions. Ultimately, he reported to the court that he had returned the papers to the party with his consent for engaging another counsel. We directed the matter to be posted on 22.2.1995 with the name of the party in the cause list. On that day, Mr. V.S. Subramaniam, Advocate appeared before us and stated that he was being instructed by the party to appear and if the vakalat is given to him he would appear and argue the matter. At his instance, the matter was adjourned to this date Viz., on 27.2.1995. Today, Mr. V.S. Subramaniam, learned counsel states that the party has not furnished him with the relevant records, nor has he given vakalat to appear in this matter. Hence, he has prayed for being excused for his absence in this case.2. Another advocate attempted to ask for an adjournment. We have refused to grant it in view of the repeated adjournments already gr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »