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.
K. Srinivasan Iyengar and Sons and Three ors. Vs. State by Inspector, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC439
ORDERShivappa, J.1. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in S.T.C. No. 31 of 1989 on the file of District and Sessions Judge for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madurai, for offences under Section 6(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 on a petition filed under Section 319, Cr. P.C. The charge sheet was initially filed in S.T.C.No.31 of 1989 against five persons. After filing the charge sheet, the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons under Section 319, Cr. P.C. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, second and third petitioners are partners and the fourth petitioner is the cashier cum bill clerk and they are included as accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no legal evidence against them. The power under Section 319, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by the Court either suo motu or on an appli...
Perumal Gounder and ors. Vs. Annamalai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ344
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in I.A. No. 1124 of 1992 in O.S. No. 884 of 1981 allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2.The case of the applicant is as follows:The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Since no steps have been taken for impleading the legal representatives of the first defendant, the petition has been filed for impleading them under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The legal procedures are only to achieve the ends of justice. Unless the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant are impleaded, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.3. The fourth respondent filed a counter adopted by the respondents 2 and 3. stating as follows: The petitioners have not taken any steps for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased Amavasai Gounder. The three applications filed by the p...
Union of India and Another Vs. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad238; 1996(1)CTC441
1. The Second Appeal is by the defendants, namely, the Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the Award passed by the defendants is invalid, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.2. It is said that Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 14-11-1973. The respondent herein purchased [he property long after Section 4(1) of the Notification, i.e. in the year 1978. He wanted the Notification to be declared invalid for the reason that an erratum notification was issued by the defendants, defrauding the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted a declaration to that effect and also prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they que...
Pappu Reddiar Vs. T.K. Murugesa Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad270; (1996)IMLJ403
ORDER1. This Revision is filed by the landlord under the Rent Control Act. He filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Turaiyur, for eviction of the respondent herein, on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rent, and also on the ground that the building is required for his own occupation.2. It is averred in the petition that rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mensem on or before the 5th of every succeeding month according to English calendar. According to the landlord, in spite of the contract between the parties, the tenant failed to pay rent from 1-4-1984 wilfully and wantonly. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has no other residential premises than the petition mentioned building, and that the same is required for his personal convenience. 3. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that he began to occupy the building from 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Lat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Administrator General of Madras (for th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR351(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 26,538 was assessable as accrued interest and the sum of Rs. 23,850 was allowable as expenses against interest income ?' 2. One Mrs. Ida L. Chambers died on 13th Aug., 1968 leaving an estate covered by her will, dt. 29th Oct., 1949 with a codicil, dt. 3rd Jan., 1950. After the death of Mrs. Ida L. Chambers, the estate was taken over by the Administrator General of Madras under an order made by this Court. The Administrator General of Madras applied to this Court for permission to take possession of the estate and the Court ordered to take possession on 28th Aug., 1968. On 28th April, 1969, the Administrator had made an application to prove the will. Probate was granted on 26th March, 1970. The Administrator filed a return, showing 'nil' income a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.S. Venkatasubbiah Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)347; [1996]221ITR18(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In this tax case by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the questions of law referred to us are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee could be stated to be carrying on a business in racing 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of a sum of Rs. 60,779 from the total income for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. In other words, the real question that has to be considered is whether the activities carried on by the respondent/assessee (HUF) would constitute a 'business' as defined under s. 2(13) of the IT Act, 1961. Even according to learned counsel for the Revenue, the activities carried on by the assessee consist of acquiring race horses, maintaining and training them and employing them in different races conducted in different centres, after taking necessary assistance from other persons for running the said horses in the races and after paying re...
S. Soundararajan Vs. the Director of School Education and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC275
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Article 226; Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974 - Rules 17A, 18 and 29; Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 22, 23, 41, 44, 45 and 48Cases Referred: Saravanamuthu, R. v. The School Committee of Sengunthar Higher Secondary School, 1996 (1) Current Tamil Nadu Cases 59Disposition: Appeal allowed29-DKanakaraj, J.1. 1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 14894 of 1994 is the appellant in the writ appeal. His case in the writ petition is as follows:-He completed the Plus Two Examination as well as the Diploma Course in Teacher Training and applied for the appointment as teacher in the third respondent School. He was duly selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School, which is a recognised aided School. According to him, the third respondent/Management had taken signatures in certain blank papers and utilised the same as a resignation letter. Consequently, after the Summer Vacation in Ju...
M. Kandasami Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by the S.E.S.A. Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC364
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent relating to the order of transfer bearing Ref. No. 2527/Adm.2/A1/ F.FM.GR.I/95 dated 30.6.1995 issued by the first respondent, quash the same and issue a consequential mandamus directing the first respondent to report the petitioner at Veppur.2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he joined the first respondent Board in the year 1965 as a Luscar and by dint of hard work, he was promoted as Line Inspector during the year 1992-93 and on 14.9.1993 he was transferred from Tholudur to Avinangudi. The joined duty at Avinangudi as a Line Inspector on 15.9.1993. While he was in Avinangudi he was promoted as a Grade I Foreman and on 6.4.1995 he was transferred to Veppur and joined duty at Veppur. Further he states that he gave a representation on 10.4.1995 to the first respondent req...
P. Paul James Alias Paulus Vs. P. Jesudas Cyril and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ381
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.2. He filed O.S. No. 179 of 1975, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Padmanabhapuram, seeking partition of the plaint mentioned properties. He claimed one-fifth share in the suit properties. Items 1 and 2 in the plaint belong to the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and late Stephen Langton. Item 3 belongs to their mother, who is also now no more. It is said that the father executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, i.e., his (plaintiffs) mother, as evidenced by Ex. A-1 dated 18.4.1942. It is said that on the death of the mother, items 1 to 3 devolved on them along with their father who had a widower estate. Father was also dead on the data of suit and, therefore, the plaintiff claims one-fifth share in the items. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff earlier filed a suit in the District Munsif s Court, Padmanabhapuram as O.S. No. 259 of 1967. That suit was dismisse...
Mahilapranam, S. and anr. Vs. Jamina Mosque Executive Committee, Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ268
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioners 3 and 4 in E.A. No. 614 of 1990 in E.P. No. 94 of 1987 in O.S. No. 452 of 1974, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court. Tuticorin, are the revision petitioners herein.2. Respondent herein filed the suit against one Ramalakshmiammal, for eviction. She claimed rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Her right to purchase the land under the said Act was upheld by this Court, and in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the decision of this Court was confirmed.3. Pending proceedings, Ramalakshmiammal died and Sivasubramania Pillai and Mahilapranam were brought on record as her legal representatives. They are the sons of Ramalakshmiammal. Mahilapranam is the first petitioner in this revision. When the court declared that the defendant is entitled to purchase the land, execution petition was filed by the first petitioner herein and Sivasubramania Pillai as E.P. No. 94 of 1987 for execution of a sale deed in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »