Chennai Court August 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.
Neelambal and anr. Vs. Gnanaselvam Thavapandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC331
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 17.7.1995, in I.A. No. 367 of 1995 in O.S. No. 231 of 1991, whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge overruling the objection of the petitioners (defendants 2 and 3 in the suit), came to the conclusion that the court-fee paid under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is legal, proper and sufficient.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decisions in Ramaswami Aiyangar v. Rangachariar : AIR1940Mad118 , Kumarasami, S.K. and 3 Ors. v. S.R. Somasundaram and 2 Ors. 1994 2 LW 646 ; Kasi Viswanathan v. Manickam Chettiar 77 L.W.687 ; and Vembu Ammal v. Swaminathan : (1986)1MLJ105 , vehemently contended that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and cannot be sustained, and that the Court below ought to have, according...
Annamalai Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ535
Sunday, June 15, 2003 Janarthanam, J. 1. The appellant was first accused in S. C. No. 44/86 on the file of Court of Session, Dharmapuri Dist. Division at Krishnagiri. The first accused and others, viz., accused 2 to 6 faced charges under sections 147, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. 1st accused alone was found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Section 201 I.P.C., with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. The rest of the accused, viz., accused 2 to 6 were found not guilty of the offences with which they stood charged and they were acquitted thereof. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to by the first accused. 3. Brief facts are : a. Chinnathallapadi and Periya Thallapadi are two tiny villages and the distances between them is about 1 k.m. Both the villages are situate within the jurisdictional limi...
Sakthi Estates Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR589(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This tax case revision is filed by the assessee under s. 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act, 1955, and the question is whether the sum of Rs. 5,61,542.50 paid as interest on loan borrowed by the assessee is allowable as deduction in computing the total agricultural income under s. 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal has upheld the disallowance of the said sum by both the lower authorities, on the ground that the said borrowal would fall under s. 5(k) of the Act and the said interest amount is beyond the limit prescribed under the said s. 5(k) of the Act. 2. The argument of learned counsel for the assessee/petitioner is that the relevant borrowal in respect of the abovesaid interest amount is only spent on the land from which agricultural income is not derived and hence, s. 5(e) is attracted. But learned counsel for the Revenue submits that there is no proof for holding that the sai...
The Management of Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Limited Vs. the Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ619Mad
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-management is to quash the award dated March 7, 1983 passed by the first respondent - Labour Court in I.D.No. 79 of 1982 under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said award has held that the order dated May 28, 1981, of dismissal from service of the second respondent workman, passed in the domestic enquiry, is not justified, (the punishment of dismissal being not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct), even though the misconduct has been proved and has directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, without backwages.2. The only question in this writ petition is how far this Court can interfere with the said order passed under Section 11A of the Act. The second respondent is an employee of the petitioner and he was by the above said, order dated May 28, 1981 dismissed from service, since he grossly abused and threatened his superior, the Su...
Tata Sons Limited Vs. Mastech Corporation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC752
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. In A.No.5675 of 1994, the petitioner has stated as follows: The suit is filed against the respondents for restraining them by means of a permanent injunction from inducing the employees of the plaintiff engaged with the plaintiff's office of Madras to abandon the service of the plaintiff in disregard of the subsisting contract of employment. The plaintiff recruits candidates with suitable background and gives extensive training at the plaintiff's costs to develop them as Software Engineers and equip them with problem solving techniques. After such training they are taken into regular service. Several crores of rupees were spent per annum by the plaintiff on training. The trainees receive salary during the period of training. A trainee has to serve to plaintiff for a period of three years from the date of joining and should undertake that he will not take up employment with anyone else during that period. An agreement is entered into between the employee and the pla...
Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills Vs. Brooke Bond India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ662
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The suit filed by the plaintiff is to restrain the defendant by an order of perpetual injunction from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work green label stand back pouch, by use of golden label stand back pouch, or any other pouch similar to plaintiff's green label stand pack pouch; for a perpetual order of injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its partners/ proprietor, servants, agents distributors, stockists or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff by use of golden label stand pack pouch or any other pouch similar to plaintiff's green label stand pack pouch or in any other manner whatsoever; and for consequential reliefs.2. The suit is filed under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. Before instituting the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for leave permitting it to institute the suit before this Court on 21.12.1992. That appli...
Sankaranarayanan Vs. Palaniswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad129; 1996(1)CTC607; (1995)IIMLJ649
ORDER1. The landlord is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsiff, Tenkasi, for evicting the respondent/tenant from the property bearing Door No. 354 situated in Ward No. 15, Kadayanallur Municipality, originally belonged to one S. Esakki Cheltiar. The respondent took the property on lease from the said S. Esakki Chettiar for running a business on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The petitioner obtained an Othi of the property on 10-12-1986 from the said S. Esakki Chettiar under Ex. A-1. The petitioner has been running a business in Door No. 354 in Ward No. 15 in a building belonging to one Kulathurammal, who wanted the petitioner to surrender the leasehold property. She had also issued notice demanding possession of the same from him. The petitioner as the Othidar is entitled to maintain the petition for eviction since he requires the building to run his business.2. The respondent/tenant resisted the ...
S.C. Shanthi Vs. P. Venkatesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad150; 1996(1)CTC658
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner in H.M.O.P. No. 354 of 1984 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras is the appellant herein. The appellant has filed the O.P. for declaration that the marriage held between the appellant and the respondent on 10-2-1984 is a nullity. The case of the appellant is that the respondent, taking advantage of the tender age of the appellant, stealthily made arrangement as if both had gone through a form of marriage at No. 14, Sowrimuthu Street, Mannady, Madras-1, under the Hindu Marriage Act and got it registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office on 10-2-1984. The Appellant has completed just 18 years. No such marriage had taken place and the petitioner had never given any consent. The respondent exercised fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion on the appellant. The appellant's parents had not given their consent. The appellant and the respondent had gone through a form of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Th...
V. Gopalan and anr. Vs. Sub-registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR449(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. This is an application by the applicants (third party) to direct the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore (first respondent herein), to register the sale deed executed by the third respondent-official assignee, without insisting on a no objection certificate from the second respondent - Appropriate Authority, IT Department. 2. The material averments as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are as follows : One Thiagarajan and Nagarathinammal were declared insolvents, and their properties vested with the third respondent herein. One item of property which the official assignee took possession was Door No. 18 (Plot No. 12-A/2), School View Road, Ramakrishna Nagar, Raja Annumalaipuram, Madras. By orders of Court, a public auction was conducted on 11th Sept., 1993, by the official assignee, and in that auction, the applicants were declared as successful bidders for a sum of Rs. 10,03,000 and they were declared as such. The entire amount was deposited by them ...
P. Ramasamy Vs. Kerala Transport Co. and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC425
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 1 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',) The landlord is the owner of the entire premises at No. 8, Lotus Ramasamy Street. Royapuram, Madras.13. The 1st respondent is a partnership firm and respondents 2 to 4 are its partners. The tenant is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. The premises was originally owned by M/s. P.R Soundarapandiyan and P.R. Selvaraj, sons of the present landlord. By a deed of release and settlement executed on 21.3.1986, they released and settled the petition premises in the name of the landlord, who is none other than their father. The tenant also attorned the tenancy in favour of the present landlord. The petitioner carries on trade and business in dhall manufacturing and he owns a dhall mill known as 'Sri Gee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »