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.
Silver Cloud Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR244(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This tax case revision No. 92 of 1989 by the assessee is under s. 54 of the TN Agrl. IT Act, 1955, and relates to the asst. yr. 1984-85. It is against the order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT (Commissioner) dt. 19th Feb., 1988, passed under s. 34 of the said Act. In other words, the impugned order is passed under the said Commissioner's power of suo motu revision. By the said order dt. 19th Feb., 1988, of the Commissioner, he set aside the order of the Asstt. Commr. of Agrl. IT, the first appellate authority, dt. 29th April, 1985, and by the same order he also made some modifications to the original assessment order dt. 31st Dec., 1984. Originally, the assessing authority, in computing the total agricultural income, disallowed a sum of Rs. 66,304.08 representing the expenditure incurred for upkeep and maintenance of the residential building of the manager and administrative officer of the assessee's estate. Further, out of a sum of Rs. 5,19,153.18 claimed by the assessee as...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. K. Abborvam (Deceased) and 15 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC329
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These petitions have been filed for condonation of delay of 851 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first respondent in the appeal and setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record. The first respondent died on 24.5.1990, but the appeal was presented only on 11.6.1990 against the first respondent as if he was alive. The appeal presented against the dead man is not valid and it has to be dismissed on that ground. Hence, there is no question of setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record.2. In such a case, the procedure to be followed by the appellant has been prescribed by a Full Bench of this Court in Alusumilli Gopala Kristnayya and Anr. v. Alivi Lakshmana Rao, A.I.R. 1925 Mad 1210. The remedy of the appellant is to seek amendment of the cause title of the appeal by showing the names of the legal representatives of the deceased respon...
R. Parthasarathy Vs. Anglo French Textiles a Unit of Pondicherry Texti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ553
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer, Grade I in the services of the respondent/Corporation which is admittedly a wholly Government owned Corporation. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was working earlier in Anglo French Textiles Limited, and after that company was acquired under the provisions of Anglo French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986 and the undertaking of the Company was vested in the Pondicherry Textiles Corporation Limited, which is a Government owned Corporation, the petitioner was employed by the said Pondicherry Textiles Corporation Limited, in its unit Anglo French Textiles, initially as a weaving Assistant.2. The terms and conditions of the petitioners employment were to be determined by the Corporation in view of Section 11(2) of that Act, which reads as under:Where services of a person who is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 194...
Ma-silamani and Etc. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ189
ORDER1. Originally H.C.P. No. 791/1995 came up for hearing before this court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is another H.P.C. No. 588 of 1995 which is similar to the present is also pending before this court. The learned counsel requested that both the petitions were taken up together since detenu is the same and she was detained under Act 14 of 1982. As per the direction of the Honourable the Chief Justice dated 17-7-1995, both petitions viz., H.C.P. 588 of 1995 and 791 of 1995 were posted before this court for disposal. 2. H.C.P. No. 791/95 was filed by one Rajendran. This Rajendran is the brother of the detenu Nagammal. So also H.C.P. No. 588 of 1995 was filed by one Masilamani who is also stated to be the brother of the said Nagammal. The said Nagammal was detained under Order passed in C3. D.O. 197 of 1994 dated 13-8-1994 user Tamil Nadu Act 14/82 as Bootlegger by the District Collector and District Magistrate, North Arcot Ambedkar District at V...
P. Ranganathan and 8 ors. Vs. Sai Jagannathan and 9 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC181; (1995)IIMLJ559
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. O.A. No. 123/1995 is an application for injunction in which the applicant has stated that the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the applicants possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the respondents who have no manner of right whatsoever in respect of the properties and who are not in possession of the properties, are attempting to commit trespass into the suit properties and therefore, interim injunction has to be granted.2. Interim injunction was granted when this application was moved on 10.2.1995 for a period of four weeks. The said order was subsequently modified to the effect that Status Quo as on 24.2.1995 has to be maintained. The respondents have filed A.No. 1071/1995 for vacating the ex parte order of injunction and A.No. 1072/1995 for interim suspension of the ex parte order of injunction.3. In the above applications which have been in the form of a counter-affidavit to O.A. No. 123/1995 apa...
M. Balakrishnan and 7 ors. Vs. the Corporation of Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC589
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The Writ Petitioners were employees of the Madurai Municipal Corporation, while they were so employed, they were suspended in the year 1979, after an investigation, which had shown that therewas mal-practice in the issue of papers to the printers for printing purposes and the Corporation, had found that the petitioners were instrumental in causing loss to the corporation, which is now said to be to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/-In the charge sheet filed in the criminal court, the amount however was shown as Rs. 60,000/- That charge sheet was filed in the criminal court against the petitioners and others, on the ground that by issuing the stock in excess, the petitioners were instrumental in causing loss to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- The first Information Report was given on 21.2.1980 in Crime No. 7 of 1980, against 18 persons including six printers. On that basis two cases in CC.Nos. 258 and 482 of 1983 were filed. The charge sheet in the criminal case was filed on ...
The Commissioner of Land Administration and ors. Vs. the Executive Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ1
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.6.1994 in W.P. No. 3886 of 1985, whereunder the learned single Judge has chosen to allow the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, praying for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st appellant before this Court dated 12.11.1984, rejecting the revision filed by the 1st respondent against the orders of the 2nd appellant dated 23.3.1984 on the grounds of laches and delay.2. The Village Tiruvarur of Thanjavur District is an Inam Estate taken over on 20.6.1977 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Inams Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively). The proceedings before us has a past history which we consider it unnecessary to be adverted to in detail for the purpose of deciding the issues raised before us. Suffice it to notice that ...
A. Umapathy, S/O Late Arumuga Gramani Vs. A. Balasubramani Gramani and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ128
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. In O.A. No. 541 of 1995, the applicant-plaintiff contends briefly as follows. The applicant has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant executed by the defendants 1 and2inrespectofthesuitproperty is null and void in view of the pre-emptive right for the plaintiff as per the partition deed dated 23.3.1983. The plaintiff has also prayed for declaration that she is entitled to purchase the above property and delivery of vacant possession. The plaintiff has also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant from making any alterations, additions etc., in the suit property. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their father effected a partition on 23.8.1983 under a deed in which it was made clear that if any one of the brothers want to sell the property allotted to them, they should give first preference to the other members of the family. The third respondent wanted to sell the property and issued a notic...
V. Chandran Vs. Oil Selection Board, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Andam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad87; 1995(2)CTC286; (1995)IIMLJ458
ORDERA. R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Petitioner in W. P. No. 5389 of 1994 is the appellanl in this appeal. He filed the writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of cer-tiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 16-3-1994 in Lr. No. Rcf. OSB/TN & P/10C/1538 and quash the same and consequently to issue a writ of mandamus for bearing respondents I to 3 from appointing any distributor for Indane at Mane, Union Territory of Pondicherry, pursuant to the interview held on 16-3-1994 or from giving effect to any decision taken by the 1st respondent for awarding the dealership to the 4th respondent.2. The Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The 2nd respondent issued a notice in the Indian Express dated 11-7-1993 calling for applications for appointment of Indane Distributorship at Mahe. The appellant submitted his application in the prescribed form to respondents 1 and 2 on 17-8-1993. He was directed to ap...
The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and anr. Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC373
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. These six Appeals are by the defendant in C.S. Nos. 144 to 149 of 1992 filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The suits were decreed by a learned single Judge of this Court by a common judgment on 20.3.19922. The respondent herein entered into six contracts with the appellant as per agreements dated 31.8.1981 and 30.11.1981. After completion of the contract, and after receipt of final bills without any protect, the respondent herein issued legal notices to the appellant herein stating that there are certain disputes and that he wanted the same to be referred to an Arbitrator. A reply was sent by the appellant disputing the liability. Thereafter six suits were filed by the respondent herein under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the matter to an Arbitrator. C.S. Nos. 144 to 149 of 1992 are the various suits filed by him. O.S.A. No. 136 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment in C.S.No. 144 of 1992; O.S.A. No. 137 of 1992 is preferred ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »