Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Periasamy Vs. Parvathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC526
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. After notice of motion, the second Appeal was listed. By consent of both the counsels, the second appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a necklace, weighing about six sovereigns from the defendants. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff has entrusted the jewel to the first defendant for safe custody and when the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the same, the first defendant was evading. Subsequently the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had pledged the jewel with the second defendant and borrowed some amount. The suit has been filed for return of the jewellery by the first defendant after discharging the loan with the second defendant or to recover the value of the jewel.3. The first defendant denied the entrustment.4. However, both the courts below have relied upon the oral evidence let in by the parties as well as the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Indira Kumari Vs. B. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ273
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P. No. 439 of 1991 concerning the ward named Lakshmanan, son of the parties to this proceedings.2. By the impugned order, the learned Judge directed that the petitioner (father) will have the custody of the son. The mother of the ward has filed this appeal.3. The parties to this appeal are described as parties in the Original Petition, for the sake of convenience.4. The material facts are:The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took pi ace on 19.8.1983. A male child was born to them on 19.8.1984, who is now named as Lakshmanan. The mother calls him as Lokesh. The husband and wife are not on good terms, and the petitioner filed O.P. No. 269 of 1987, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, praying for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage that took place between the parties. The same was later transferred to the Family Court and was renumbered as O.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Vs. C.D. Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ327
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This appeal by the respondent is against the order passed in O.P. No. 425 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Madras.2. The petition was filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for adeclaration that the marriage between the parties that took place on 10.3.1991 at Madras is null and void.3. The parties in this appeal are referred to as in the Original Petition.4. The material facts of the case are as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 10.3.1991 at Madras. Prior to the marriage, on 30.11.1990, the petitioner's parents visited the bride's house to see the girl. It is alleged that the respondent's father cleverly and cunningly stage-managed every minute of their presence in such a way that the actual seeing of the girl was restricted to less than a minute. It is further alleged that the respondent's father never allowed the petitioner or his parents to think and react, and, under such conditions...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Oil Traders and Another Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas798(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. South India Viscose Ltd., presently known as SIV Industries Limited (for short 'the company') it is said, is a public company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered and corporate office at No. 1977-A, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005. 2. Agro Oil Traders (for short 'firm'), it is said, is a partnership firm, carrying on business at No. 153, Anna Pillai Street, Kothawal Bazaar, Madras, of which one Mohammed Ansari is the managing partner. 3. The company sold and supplied to the firm, Golden Harvest Super Refined Sun Flower Oil on various dates. Towards the supplies so effected, it is said, there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 9,26,212 payable by the firm. In part payment of the abovesaid outstanding, the firm was stated to have issued certain cheques signed by the managing partner in favour of the company. The company presented cheques for encashment through their bankers - ANZ Grindlays Bank, Madras, on May 19, 1993, and the...
Tag this Judgment!A. Nallasivan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2754
ORDER1. This writ petition by a RAJYA SABHA MEMBER and Secretary of the Tamil Nadu State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), filed as a public interest litigation, is against respondents 1 and 2, who are State of Tamil Nadu, represented by two different Secretaries, 3rd respondent, who is the District Forest Offcer, Harur Division, Dharmapuri District, 4th respondent, who is Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District and the 5th respondent, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harur. It prays for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to hold an enquiry into the happenings, commencing from 20-6-1992 and the consequent suffering undergone by the Villagers of Vachathi, a small Tribal Village in the abovesaid Harur Taluk. It also prays that upon considering the abovesaid enquiry report, for taking appropriate penal action against the delinquent personnel and for compensating the victims. It also prays for an enquiry being held on the wider question of smuggling ...
Tag this Judgment!Minor S. Suren Rep. by Father Guardian K. Subramaniam Vs. the Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC358
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition as guardian. It is stated by the petitioner that he belongs to Backward Class and he applied for the admission for M.B.,B.S. Course for the academic year 1993-94 after passing his +2 Examination held in March, 1994. He had obtained the following marks in the qualifying examination:-Physics 197 for 200Chemistry 194 for 200Biology 182 for 200Maths 195 for 200He also appeared for Entrance Examination for the academic year 1993-94 and his Registration Number is 726210. He has obtained 49.2 marks in Biology and 45.8 marks in Physics and Chemistry, totalling 95 marks. It is further stated that the petitioner secured 166.75 marks in the qualifying examination and in the entrance examination he was given 95 marks totalling 283.75 marks out of 300 marks. The cut off marks for that year for Backward Class was 287.05. It is further stated that the petitioner has done his entrance exami...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bagavath Vinayagar Koil Vs. M. Ramu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC501; (1995)IIMLJ309
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The landlord/Devasthanam has filed both these revisions against the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Kumbakonam, in C.M.A. No. 12 and 17 of 1988, the former filed by the Devasthanam and the latter by the tenant/respondent against the order of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam. in OP. No. 11 of 1985, which was filed by the tenant for fixation of fair rent for the land of an extent of 700 sq.ft. which is under the occupation of the tenant. The learned District Munsif has fixed the rent at Rs. 62-50 taking the fair rent at Rs. 50/-. The learned Subordinate Judge reduced the rent payable by the tenant and fixed the same at Rs. 37-50 taking in to account the rent at Rs. 30/- per year. Aggrieved by the same, the Devasthanam has now filed the above revisions.2. I have heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran for the DEvasthanam and Mr.R. Sekar for the tenant.3. According to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the Devasthanam, the Appellate Court has filed to note t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bagavath Vinayagar Koil Represented by Its Executive Officer Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ309
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The landlord/Devasthanam has filed both these revisions against the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, in C..M.A. Nos. 12 and 17 of 1988, the former filed by the Devasthanam and the later by the tenant/ respondent against the order of the District Munsif Kumbakonam in O.P. No. 11 of 1985, which was filed by the tenant for fixation of fair rent for the land of an extent of 700 sq.ft., which is under the occupation of the tenant. The learned District Munsif has fixed the rent at Rs. 62.50 taking the fair rent at Rs. 50. The learned Subordinate Judge reduced the rent payable by the tenant and fixed the same at Rs. 37.50 taking into account the rent at Rs. 30 per year. Aggrieved by the same, the Devasthanam has now filed the above revisions.2. I have heard Mr. K. Chandrasekaran for the Devasthanam and Mr. R. Sekar for the tenant.3. According to Mr. K. Chandrasekaran learned Counsel for the Devasthanam the appellate court has filed to note t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. A. Asokan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad99
ORDERK. A. Swami, C. J. 1. There is a delay of 220 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offered by the appellant is that endorsement regarding the disposal of the writ petition was not made on the docket by the legal officer concerned, therefore action could not be takep for filing the appeal and the appellant came to know of it only when the writ petitioner issued a legal notice on 30-7-92 and thereafter, action was taken and the appeal was filed on 3-9-92. There is an objection filedby the writ petitioner that there is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay and that the appellant appeared to have woke-up only after the receipt of the letter sent by llic writ petitioner and as such, it cannot furnish a ground for condoning the delay. Having regard to the fact that the disposal of the writ petition was not noted on the docket and also the procedure that is followed by the office of the Advocate General in these matters, we are of the view that the explanation should b...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR309(Mad)
Mishra J.1. On the demise of one, K. Kunchithapatham, on October 5, 1974, who, it is alleged, had gifted a little over 24 acres of wet land in a village in Karaikkal, a quarter of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, the Controller of Estate Duty has sought for a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, accordingly, the Tribunal at Madras has referred to this court the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, while agreeing with the view that section 10 of the Estate Duty Act would be applicable to this case, was justified in concluding that section 33(1)(o) would apply in respect of the gift included under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the provisions of section 33(1)(o) of the Estate Duty Act in respect of the gifts made by the deceased on April 4, 1963, prior to the insertion of clause (o) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »