Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Arulmighu Ammachi Ayyanar Mandu Koil Vs. Alagu Karuppannan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ209
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. C.R.P. Nos. 651 to 653 of 1994: These three revisions arise out of applications filed by the respondent in each of these revision petitions for injunction pending suits filed by them respectively. The prayer in each suit is for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under the due process of law. The trial court granted injunction which has been confirmed by the appellate court. The aggrieved defendant in each suit has preferred these petitions. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the owner of the property. As it is a temple, the property is being leased out by public auction every year. In the auction held in 1988 the respondent in each of these revisions became the successful bidder and it was leased out for one year from 1.7.1988 to 30.6.1989. In the auction held for the next two faslis, the respondents were again the successful bidd...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Chettiar Vs. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ282
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. R.C.O.P. No. 19 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Cuddalore, was filed by the petitioner herein, for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the non-residential building, which is the subject matter of the proceeding, is bona fide required for his own occupation and also on the ground that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.2. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per Ex.A-23 partition deed in his family, he obtained ownership over the scheduled property. The respondent herein was the tenant under his father, and, after the petitioner became the landlord, the tenancy has been attorned to him. The rate of rent is Rs. 75 per month.3. The petitioner contended that himself, his father and other members of the family were conducting jewellery business and the petitioner had experience in conducting jewellery shop. He wants to open a showroom in the scheduled building for which he has requested permission from the concerned authorities...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Priyachandrakumar and Others Vs. Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas150(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan J.1. The applicants in O. A. No. 708 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The prayer in the suit is as follows : (a) For a declaration that the notice dated June 29, 1994, issued by the first respondent for the proposed annual general body meeting of the first respondent to be held on August 4, 1994, in so far as it relates to items Nos. 7 and 8 of the said notice is illegal and void. (b) For permanent injunction restraining the respondents in any manner considering the said subjects, viz., items Nos. 7 and 8 of the notice dated June 29, 1994, issued for the proposed annual general body meeting of the first respondent to be held on August 4, 1994, or on any other day. 2. The first respondent is a company and is also a nidhi. The second respondent is a person who was proposed for election as a director of the first respondent in the annual general body meeting to be fixed on August 4, 1994. Items Nos. 7 and 8 in the notice have been proposed as 'special business'. 3....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. R. Gandhi, President, and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3129
Srinivasan, J. 1. This appeal is against the order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, the prayer in which is in the following terms :- 'For the reasons in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent in his G.O. Ms. No. 1487, Home (Cts. II), dated 29-7-1989 and all the consequential appointments made based in the said G.O. and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to appoint Special Executive Magistrates/Judicial Magistrates Grade II/Metropolitan Magistrate only persons having law degree following the judgment reported in 1985 Mad LJ (Crl) p. 453 and to pass such other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.' 2. It is obvious that the prayer is misconceived and ba...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Lalchand Huf and anr. Vs. K.M. Lulls Huf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC556
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the common order passed by a single Judge of this Court sitting on the Original side on four applications filed during the pendency of a suit. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent will be referred to as the defendant.2. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale said to have been entered orally by the defendant with the plaintiffs in or around August 1991. The sale price was Rs. 9, 75, 000 for each plot. The parties have agreed that the sale consideration should be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff and his wife agreed to purchase the plots because they intended to build a temple for Sri Shiridi Sai Baba and the entire extent of 7.37 acres was needed for such construction in a fit manner. The defendant delivered the original title deeds relating to the suit property to the first plaintiff and also put the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivalingam Vs. the District Magistrate and Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC277
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. One Sivalingam (petitioner) is the detenu. The detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case, as set out in the grounds of detention, he had come to adverse notice in five other cases.2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai (first respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) clamped upon the detenu, the impugned order of detention, in his proceedings P.D.O.No.16 of 1994 dated 6.5.1994, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.3. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would press into service the lone and sole point for consideration, namely, that there was no proper service of the intimatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dolerite Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)7; [1996]217ITR318(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In this tax case petition, the Department requested this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1986-87 for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials in holding that extension of time for filing the returns of income/loss should be deemed to have been allowed to the assessee and accordingly allowing the benefit of carry forward of loss ?' 2. It remains to be seen that there was delay in filing the return by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee submitted Form No. 6 explaining the delay in filing the return, and asking for extension of time. The ITO did not consider this request made by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj Java vs . R. G. Nitsure : [19...
Tag this Judgment!Johan Devadoss Vs. Ruth Moris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC521; (1995)IIMLJ357
ORDERRaju, J.1. Having regard to the nature and scope of the consideration required for the Civil Miscellaneous. Petitions and the Main revision, the main case itself has been directed o be posted for hearing along with the miscellaneous petitions and has been heard together.2. The revision petitioner has been filed challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Thiruvallur dated 20-9-1994 in I.A.No. 702 of 1994 in O.S. No. 71 of 1994 whereunder in the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the Court below it has chosen to order the return the plaint as also the application for impleading for being presented o the Court of District Munsif at Ponneri for further course of action before the said Court. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of he Sub Court Thiruvallur praying for a declaration of the plaintiffs title o the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit has been valued at Rs. 25.000/- for the purpose of Court fees and ju...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam Vs. Perumayee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC479
ORDERK.A. Swamy, C.J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the common order dated 2.07.1991 passed on C.M.P.Nos.3989. 9218 and 9219 ofl990 filed in A.S.No.l08 of 1982.2. C.M.P.No. 3959 of 1990 was filed for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Respondent in the appeal on record. C.M.P.No. 9219 of 1990 was filed for condonation of delay. C.M.P.No. 9218 of 1990 was filed for setting aside the abatement. L.P.A.No. 106 of 1992 is filed against that portion of the common order by which the appeal itself has been dismissed consequent to the rejection of C.M.P.No. 3959 9218 and 9249 of 1990.2.1. A.S.No. 108 of 1982 is filed by the 1st defendant in the suit O.S.No. 251 of 1976, on the file of the sub Judge, Salem, against the preliminary decree passed therein for partition and separate possession of the shares. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal. The trial Court has awarded 4/9th share to the plaintiff/and 5/9the share to defendants 1 and 2. During th...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Represented by Its Secretary Vs. S.A. Syed Masoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ514
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 9 of 1983, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenkasi, is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant is the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary.2. The reliefs sought for in the plaint are: (1) Recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint as 2nd Schedule; (2) for a direction to the defendants 3 to 35 to put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule properties; (3) for costs of suit and (4) for such other reliefs.3. The material averments as given in the plaint are: The plaint mentioned properties belonged to Kalvathanayagam Taluk at Kalvathayagam Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi. The said Wakf was surveyed and the same was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 13.5.1959. The said Wakf is managed by a Committee elected by the disciples of Kalvathanayagam, and, on the date of suit, the first respondent herein (1st defendant in the suit) was the elected Muthawalli of the Wakf. On 12.10.1977, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »