Chennai Court January 1996 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.
Kuppuswamy Vs. Periannan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad342
1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 21st day of November, 1995 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment :--Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows :--The defendants 1 and 4 are sons of Chinnanna Gounder and they constituted a Hindu Joint Family to whom the suit properties belonged. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The grandfather of the plaintiff is dead. In addition to his 1/3rd share, the first defendant is entitled to a share in his deceased father also. He is entitled to 5/12 shares in all. Third defendant is the daughter of Chinnanna Gounder. Defendants 5 to 26 are the co-owners of various survey numbers. Defendants 27 to 29 are the alienees from defendants 1 and 4 and their father. The plaintiff is the only son of the first defendant. The parents of the plaintiff lived together as husband and wife for 12 years after the marriage. The first defendant developed ...
Annamalai Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad364
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 6th, Thursday, the 7th and Friday, the 9th day of December, 1995 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 10-10-95 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Rajeswaran, Advocate for the respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:--The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration the entire paragraph 9.00 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule Part I of the Schedule to the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity formulated by the 1st respondent in B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 61 dated ...
Coats Viyella India Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise, Ambasamudram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT186(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard Mr. S. Govindaswaminathan, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. M. S. Sivam counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 26044 of 1995 has been filed to modify my order, dated 6-1-1995 passed in W. M. P. No. 23684 of 1995 in W. P. No. 13292 of 1995. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Ambasamudram, by letter OC No. 485 of 1995, dated 30-3-1995 requested the petitioner company to pay the differential duty of Rs. 5,13,80,385/- as indicated in the work sheet enclosed with the letter for the clearances of Core Spun Thread effected from March, 1994 to February, 1995. According to the petitioner, the above direction contravened the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act (in short 'the Act') and therefore, they informed the Superintendent, C. E., Ambasamudram that the request to pay the differential duty is not valid in law without following the due procedure laid un...
D. Jayabalakrishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ877Mad; (1996)IMLJ367
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to call for the records of the respondent in Memo No. ENT/116545/HO95 dated November 28, 1995 and to quash the same. 3. Since this is a matter covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. 1994 II CLR 645 the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the proceedings dated November 28, 1995 ordering recovery of one days' salary payment to the petitioner for November 1995. According to the petitioner, the impugned order clearly exhibits the mala fide intention on the part of the respondent since he has not imposed any pay-cut in respect of certain other persons, namely, Thiru V.A. Varadan, Assistant Secretary, Thiru R. Gopalan, Draughting Officer attached to the Chambers of Managing Director, Thiru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›