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.
E.R. Ranganathan Vs. Sarojammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ302
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff decree-holder has filed this revision against the dismissal, of his Execution Petition No. 1916 of 1991 in O.S. No. 4686 of 1990 on the file of X Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, on 9.12.1993. E.P. No. 1916 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff for arrest of the judgment-debtor/respondent for detention in the civil prison and for attachment of her movables. The said execution petition has been filed under Order 21, Rule 32(1), C.P.C. for executing the decree of injunction obtained in O.S. No. 4686 of 1990, dated 27.3.1991, restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession by the petitioner of the property in question. The court below has dismissed the execution petition on two grounds, viz., (1) the respondent is a woman and she cannot be arrested; (2) it is not stated by the petitioner specifically that the respondent has acted contrary to the said decree.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both these two alleged reasons...
G. Loganathan Vs. S. Chenniaya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad224; 1995(2)CTC492
1. This appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge Sankari, in A.S. No. 16 of 1993 returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction for the trial Court.2. The appellant therein filed the suit for declaration and possession against the respondent/defendant before the District Mun-sif, Tiruchangodu. The suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/- for which the Court-fee was paid under Section 25A of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act. Though the defendant, in the written statement, contended that the suit has not been correctly valued and that the learned District Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, this was found against him, by the trial Court. The suit was decreed in toto and an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, though the learned Subordinate Judge, had agreed with the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and possession, he has found that the value of th...
Pratap Shah Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas228(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The defendant, who is aggrieved by the order passed in Application No. 4458 of 1992, directing him to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000 within eight weeks from the date of the order, has preferred this appeal. The suit is filed by the respondent-bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,03,518.21. Along with the suit, the respondent filed Application No. 4458 of 1992, for a direction to the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee for the suit claim. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the following averment is made : 'As stated earlier, the respondent is now doing a very profitable real estate business and owning properties in the city of Madras as seen from the letters.' 2. There is no other averment in the affidavit to the effect that the defendant is trying to alienate his properties or attempting to do any other thing by which the execution of the decree may be defeated or delayed. The prayer in the application is on...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Palaniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)507; [1996]219ITR380(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. In this tax case under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, preferred by the Revenue, the respondent/assessee remained unrepresented. So, we have heard learned counsel for the Revenue alone. The question referred to this Court is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40% in respect of the buses (on the basis of the notification dt. 24th July, 1980) for the asst. yr. 1980-81?' 2. In other words, prior to the abovesaid notification dt. 24th July, 1980 which brought about the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1980, which, inter alia, inserted item (1A) in Group E under the heading III 'Machinery and plant' in Part I of Appendix I to the IT Rules, 1962, the rate of depreciation for the assessee 's buses was 30% and by the said notification, the said rate was 40% and is applicable to the assessment year in question namely, 1980-81, though the said notification...
Shanmugavel Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC260; (1996)IMLJ84
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is by the second defendant in C.S.No. 636 of 1995 on the file of the Original Side of this Court against the order dated 30-6-1995 made in O.A.No. 509 of 1995 restraining him from infringing in any manner the plaintiffs registered trade mark 'THE MAIL' by use of the trade mark 'Trinity Mail' or any trade mark incorporating the word 'MAIL'. The parties in this appeal will be Deferred to by their rank in the suit for the sake of convenience.2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint as follows:- The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade marks 'THE MAIL' and 'THE WEEKLY MAIL' registered under Nos. 115521 and 115522 respectively dated 27th November, 1945 in Class 16 in respect of News Papers and printed publications. The Registration has been duly renewed from time to time and is still valid and subsisting. The title 'THE MAIL' has also been registered with The Registrar of Newspapers for India. A declaration has been filed before the Chief Metropolitan...
State of Tamilnadu Vs. E.P. Nawab Marakkadai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC95
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The above tax (revision) cases came up before a Division Bench presided over by the honourable Chief Justice and the Division Bench passed the following order making a reference of all the tax cases to be considered by a Full Bench of three honourable Judges. The order of reference is as follows:'The correctness of the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Madanraj 1992 (1) MTCR 16 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Jayamurugan Metal Mart 1992 (2) MTCR 320 is put in issue in the light of a decision of the Supreme Court in 29 STC 201 . Since the decision of the Supreme Court which is earlier in point of time has not been considered in any of the aforesaid two decisions, we consider that the matter requires consideration by a large Bench and therefore, these case are referred to a Full Bench of three Judges.:'The order of reference by the Division Bench in the above tax cases correctly puts the issue for decision by this Full Bench.2. To appreciate the question for decision ...
R. Rajagopal Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. Padmini Chandrasekaran (Died) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ603
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the 1st defendant in C.S. No. 110 of 1971 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 19.2.1979. 2. The appellant/1st defendant died pending this appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 10. The 1st respondent/plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and one of the executors viz., R. Krishnamurthi was brought on record as 8th respondent as the legal representative of the 1st respondent. The 2nd defendant Venugopal Reddy died pending the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 8, who are respondents 3 to 7 in this appeal. The 3rd defendant/Gandhi Nagar Co-operative House Construction Society Limited is the 2nd respondent in this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit C.S. No. 110 of 1971 for a declaration that she is the sole and exclusive owner and is in possession of th...
Shanmugavel Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ84
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is by the second defendant in C.S. No. 636 of 1995 on the file of the original side of this Court against the order dated 30.6.1995 made in O.A. No. 509 of 1995 restraining him from infringing in any manner the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'THE MAIL' by use of the trade mark 'Trinity Mail' or any trade mark incorporating the word 'MAIL'. The parties in this appeal will be referred to by their rank in the suit for the sake of convenience.2. The plaintiff has averred in the plant as follows: The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade marks 'THE MAIL' and 'THE WEEKLY MAIL' registered under Nos. 115521 and 115522 respectively dated 27th November, 1945 in Class 16 in respect of News Papers and printed publications. The Registration has been duly renewed from time to time and is still valid and subsisting. The title 'THE MAIL' has also been registered with The Registrar of New Papers for India. Declaration has been filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magis...
Ayshath Fathima Vs. Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ146; 1995(52)ECC89
Janarthanam, J. 1. One Ayshath Fathima (petitioner) is the wife of the detenu Mohammed Jaffar Ali. The residential premises of the detenu was searched on 14-9-1994 by the Enforcement Directorate and the Officers seized Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 2,54,650/- and three bunches of loose sheets. They also, it is said, searched Room No. 22 at No. 76 Savarimuthu Street, Madras and recovered Rs. 1,10,000/- Indian currency and certain sheets of papers. A statement under S. 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, it is said, was recorded from the detenu, in which he was alleged to have stated that one Ahmad Maulana of Singapur is his relative and he persuaded him to receive payment and distribute the same to the persons, whose names and addresses would be furnished by the said Ahmad Maulana. He, it is further said, also employed persons, viz., Ahmad Jalaluddin, Mahmood and Nandagopal, with a view to distribute the monies to the intended persons. Statements, it is said, were also rec...
George Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1755
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was the first accused in S.C. No. 8 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Session, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil. He was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code, with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. The other accused, namely, the second accused was found not guilty of offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, with which he stood charged and acquitted thereof. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence, the present action had been resorted to by the appellant-first accused. 3. Brief facts are :- (a) The first and the second accused, brothers, are residents of Mandaikadu Puthur, situate within the jurisdictional limits of Manavalankurichi Police Station. They have been eki...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »