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.
Rajee Vs. Baburao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad262; 1996(2)CTC22; (1995)IIMLJ492
1. This Second appeal is by the wife who was the respondent in H.M.O.P. No. 4 of 1988, on the file-of Sub Court, Nagapattinam.2. The husband, the respondent herein, filed the above application for divorce on the ground that the appellant is leading an adulterous life. 3. The marriage between the parties took place on 2-9-1960, and out of the wedlock, three children were born, a son and two daughters. Both the daughters are married and the son is also self-employed. It is at that time, the respondent (husband) has filed the petition for divorce, alleging adultery on the part of his wife. 4. The material averments regarding adultery as stated in the application are as follows : 'The petitioner was having acquaintance with one Vairakkannu, a teacher working in a school at Kariakattu Street, Tiruvarur. He used to visit the sweet stall and look after the business of the petitioner as a friend. In course of time, he gained confidence with the petitioner. The petitioner possessed of Nanja lan...
C.J. Sheth Construction Company and anr. Vs. Sunderdas Arjunlal and 4 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC29
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these Applications are filed by the plaintiff for passing an interim decree against the defendants.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of more than Rs. 1 3/4 crores. It is stated that pursuant to a discussion between the applicants and the respondents, the respondents agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 59 lakhs within a period of three years form 1-1-1988 against the applicants relinquishing their rights and interest over the applicants' share in the first floor of the building complex. It is stated that the defendants even though agreed to pay Rs. 59 lakhs, they have been evading payment pending suit. They issued a notice on 8-6-1993 through their counsel to the respondents calling upon them to discharge their liabilities as set out in the notice. It is stated that a reply notice was sent, which was only to evade the payment. The petitioner/plaintiff would state in the affidavit that the defendants have raised untenable plea...
Sambandam and anr. Vs. Guru Chandrasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ43
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 17 of 1993 in the Court of District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. They filed a suit for declaration of their possessory title to the suit property which is in T.S. No. 59 within Mayiladuthurai Town and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of this piece of land. The allegation in the plaint is to the effect that the ground site of this property belongs to Arulmigu Kumarakattalai Sri Subramaniaswamy Devasthanam. The father of the defendants/respondents, by name Kuppusamy, the original lessee of this land has assigned his lease-hold right therein in favour of one Kasambu Achi by means of a hand-letter dated 25.2.1977 executed for a consideration of Rs. 3,000. The said Kuppusamy has also conveyed the land in favour of the said Kasambu under the registered sale-deed dated 22.12.1976. Kasambu and her husband Narayanasamy are no more. Revision pet...
Jothi Chemicals and Detergents, Represented by Its Proprietrix, K.M. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ654
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The applicant in O. A. No. 244 of 1995 in her affidavit contends briefly as follows: The applicant is manufacturer of liquid whitening agent/Fabric Bright-ener or Instant Action Liquid carrying on business on a large scale for a period of several years throughout India, more predominantly in Kerala. She had adopted the word 'Jothi' in respect of the product manufactured and marketed by her. The product 'Jothi Fabric Whitener' is sold in a blue plastic, oval shaped container which is flat on two surfaces with an elongated and tubular neck and a white screw-on plastic cap. The label is berthed on the face of the bottle in a perfect oval shape on the front face of the container. The front face is outlined in white enclosing the logo of the applicant's concern on the top and below that the applicant's trade mark and trade name Jothi is printed in large letters. The words 'For Fabric Whitener, aided by K.K. & V.I.B. Max.Retail Price 4.50 (inclusive of all taxes), Jothi ...
Chockalingapuram thevangar Vardhaga Sangam Vs. Chokkanathaswami Temple ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad148; 1995(2)CTC553; (1996)IMLJ254
ORDER1. The above revision has been filed by the 1st defendant in the suit pending trial in O.S. No. 128/86 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai against the order dt. 3-8-94 in I. A. No. 448/94, whereunder the court below has chosen to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under O. 26, R. 9, C.P.C. praying for a direction to appoint a fresh advocate-commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and send a fresh report and further plan in the light of the document now produced by the petitioners, if need be after measuring the property. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. There is no dispute over the position that the suit is part heard before the trial court and equally there is no controversy over the position that at the instance of the petitioner, an advocate commissioner had been appointed and he, on inspection had submitted a report along with plan. The only controversy is as to whether, the present application made at the time ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Synthokam Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC13(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The State is the petitioner herein, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether adhesives in question are chemicals. The Tribunal held that adhesives in question cannot be treated as chemicals. Accordingly the Tribunal directed levy of tax at 4 per cent. This view was taken by the Tribunal, by following an earlier order of its own, on this point. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in (State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Madras South Division, Madras v. Hihard Products, Madras-44), T.C. No. 1430 of 1982, dated September 26, 1991, wherein this Court dismissed the tax case preferred by the department, by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, which held that adhesives are not chemicals. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in levying tax at 4 per cent, by not treating the adhesives as chemical. In that view of the matter, this tax case (revision) filed...
K.M. Valliappan Vs. the Madras Seva Sadan Higher Secondary School, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ488
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner who was a Headmaster of the 1st respondent school has, in this writ petition challenged the order issued by the Secretary of the School on 5.6.1995, placing him under suspension with immediate effect.2. The petitioner's case is that certain charges were levelled against him and a show cause notice was served on him on 28.1.1995, to which he has sent a reply. The school committee at its meeting held on 28.4.1995, having formed the opinion that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory resolved that an enquiry officer be appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against him. Copy of minutes of the meeting held on that date has been produced by the petitioner as also by the respondents. The resolution that has been recorded on that date has been set out, It reads thus:It is therefore, resolved that an enquiry officer may be appointed to go into the charges levelled against him. The Secretary is hereby authorised to take all such f...
Rathinavel Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ571
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was accused in S.C. No. 68 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Salem. He was found guilty under Section 302 (2 monnts) I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under each count with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 123 of 1986. 2. Aggrieved by the connviction and sentences, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are :- (a) One Sivashanmugham (since deceased-first deceased - for short D1) was the eldest son of P.W. 1, a resident of Kulakkadu at Pallipalayamm. D. 1's father-in-law is one Natesan. The said Natesan owned a lorry bearing registration No. MSN. 458 (M.O.I.). The said lorry had been managed by D. 1. The accused had been employed as the driver of the said lorry. The accused is also related to P.W. 1. as his pangali. The lorry had two cleaners. One among them was one Ganesan (since deceas...
Tamilmani Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)501; 1997CriLJ144
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life, is the appellant herein. She has preferred this appeal from the Special Prison for women, Madurai. Hence, this Court has appointed one Mr. B. Ullalsavelavan, Advocate of this Court, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and defend the appellant. 2. The prosecution case is as follows :- P.W. 1 Appavu along with his wife Chellammal is residing at Sanappiratti Pathiyur village. The appellant along with her brother Karuppiah was residing at Pathaiyur, which is one kilo metre away from Sanappiratti. On the morning on 20-7-1986 at about 6.00 a.m. when P.W. 1 Appavu returned from his field, he was informed by his wife Chellammal the goat which was tied in his house was stolen away by somebody. P.W. 1 searched for the goat in vain till that evening. P.W. 5 Palraj used to s...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadars Abiviruthi Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)10; [1996]219ITR303(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. In these two tax case references, preferred by the Revenue under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the assessee is common, and the former tax case relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80 and the latter to 1980-81. The question referred in both the cases is the same, though the question is worded slightly differently in each of the two cases and it is enough if the question of law referred in Tax Case No. 648 of 1985 is set out. It is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act notwithstanding the fact that the case is hit by the provisions of s. 13(1)(bb) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' In other words, the question is whether the income of the assessee trust is entitled to exemption under s. 11 of the Act, despite what is contained in s. 13(1)(bb) of the Act. 2. The assessee is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act and its objects as found...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »