Chennai Court November 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.
Sundaram Steel Co., Represented by Managing Partner P. Radhakrishnan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ376
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed before both the authorities below under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the tenants have preferred this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed against them on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent for a period of six months from 1.11.1984 to 30.4.1985, in a sum of Rs. 4,200 in all, that is at the rate of Rs. 700 per month.2. The only argument made by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have given rental advance of Rs. 7,000 to the respondent-landlady and if that is taken into account, there is no default at all. The receipt issued by the respondent landlady for the abovesaid sum of Rs. 7,000 is said to be with the Income Tax Recovery Office, Coimbatore-18 and in this connection, the petitioners have also filed in this C.R.P. C.M.P. No. 15892 of 1996 to summon the advance receipt from the said tax recovery offic...
India Pistons Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1996
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT793(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories, falling under Chapter No. 84.09 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act). The petitioner is required to maintain accounts of the goods manufactured by it for the purpose of levy and assessment of excise duty. During the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, the annual stock taking was taken of the goods manufactured and assessed and in the annual stock taking account, the Excise Department authorities found that there were alleged shortages in certain goods and excess in certain goods. According to the assessees, the deficiency in some goods and the excess in certain other goods were found, because the assessee is manufacturing large number of similar liking goods such as piston rings, gudgeon pins etc. and the variation in the dimension is so small that one could mistake one with the other. The authorities invoked Rule 22...
India Pistons Limited Represented by Its Director K.V. Shetty Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ259
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories, falling under Chapter No. 84.09 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Excise Act). The petitioner is required to maintain accounts of the goods manufactured by it for the purpose of levy and assessment of excise duty. During the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, the annual stock taking was taken of the goods manufactured and assessed and in the annual stock taking account, the Excise Department authorities found that there were alleged shortages in certain goods and excise in certain goods. According to the assessee, the deficiency in some goods and the excess in certain other goods were found, because the assessee is manufacturing large number of similar looking goods such as piston rings, gudgeon pins etc. and the variation in the dimension is so small that one could mistake one with the other. The authori...
Balasubramanian Vs. Thulasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: II(1998)DMC82
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This case has got a chequered history.2. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. The wife filed M.C. No. 32 of 1989, before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, claiming maintenance from her husband at Rs. 500/- per month. This was contested by the husband, the petitioner herein, stating that no marriage had taken place between the parties. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the materials adduced by both the parties, accepted the case of the wife, and awarded the maintenance of Rs. 500/-per month. This order was passed on 10.1.1992. Aggrieved over this order, the husband /petitioner filed the Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 161 of 1992, which was admitted by this Court on 1.7.1992, and notice ordered to the wife. However, no stay was granted.2. A. Though the issue relating to the marriage and the entitlement of the wife to claim maintenance, is pending before this Court, the petitioner/husband filed a suit in O.S. No. ...
Dayalan and anr. Vs. Sri Kadeswaraswami Temple of Kadaiyur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ373
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The claimants for patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conservation into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963), (Herein after referred to as the Act), have filed this S.T.A.No. 4 of 1985 against the impugned order dated 22.3.1983 of the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal in CM. A No. 61 of 1981, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the same claimants against the order of the settlement Tahsildar dated 28.8.1970, which granted the said patta in favour of the temple in question.2. As per the extract taken from the Inam Fair Registrar, as found in the relevant file, the grant is a 'Devadayam' grant for preparing the accounts of the pagoda and for managing the affairs of the pagoda (Kadeswaraswami at Kadaiyur). Another passage therein also says that the grant is permanent so long as it is continued. From yet another passage therein, it appears that it is granted to Kangayam Maniyam Kanakku Anandaram. It appears that this is referred to in column 16 of the Fair Inam R...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Krishnan A., Lineman Grade I
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC116; (1998)IIILLJ72Mad; (1997)IIMLJ79
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S No. 810 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore, North Arcot Ambedkar District.The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the memo No. SEV/Adm. 2/A-4/70-1/78, dated August 26, 1978 of the defendant and subsequent memos are void.2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint filed before the trial Court was that the plaintiff was appointed as nominal Muster Roll worker on February 14, 1947 that by virtue of his hard work, he was promoted as Helper on August 8, 1955, later as Assistant Wireman during 1959 and again as Wireman during July, 1970 and once again promoted as Lineman Grade-I on December 15, 1978 and that as per the memorandum of settlement dated July 11, 1969 entered into between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its workmen and particularly, as per term No. 9 it was mandatory on the part of the defendant Electricity Board, to abolish the categor...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by Its Superintending Engine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ79
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 810 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore, North Arcot Ambedkar District. The respondent/Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the memo No. SEV/Adm. 2/A-4/701-1/ 78, dated 26.8.1978 of the defendant and subsequent memos are void.2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint filed before the trial court was that the plaintiff was appointed as nominal Muster Roll Worker on 14.2.1947, that by virtue of his hard work, he was promoted as Helper on 8.8.1955, later as Assistant Wireman during 1959 and again as Wireman during July, 1970 and once again promoted as Lineman Grade-I on 15.12.1978 and that as per the memorandum of settlement dated 11.7.1969 entered into between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its workmen and particularly, as per term No. 9 it was mandatory on the part of the defendant Electricity Board, to abolish the category of the post of Assistant...
Thangavelu Vs. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ246
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A. No. 36 of 1989, dated 2.4.1991, confirming the order of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1980, dated 4.10.1989. The respondent, Ramadoss was the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1980 before the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur. The revision petitioner was the respondent in the said R.C.O.P. Ramadoss contended in that petition that the revision petitioner Thangavelu was a tenant of a building being premises, bearing door Nos. 24-A and 25 in Ward II, Block III, Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur and situate in T.S. No. 593 of an extent of 422 and 1/4 sq.ft. under one Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai, on a monthly rent of Rs. 7 and that he, Ramadoss had purchased the same along with some other items from that Ramanathan Chettiar by a sale deed, dated 7.3.1980. The prayer for eviction was founded on Section 10(2)(i) and (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Leas...
Syndicate Bank Represented by Its Chairman and Managing Director Vs. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ123
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.8.1996 in W.P. No. 18785 of 1992, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashing the communication dated 28.12.1989 of the Personnel Manager of the appellant bank expressing their inability to keep the offer of appointment open favouring the respondent on her attaining the age of majority, and directing the appellant to provide a suitable job to the respondent in any existing vacancy or any future vacancy as expeditiously as possible.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, the following facts require to be noticed. The respondent is the first daughter of late N. Narayana Pillai, who was working in the appellant bank. He died on 29.6.1984 while in service. The respondent's mother, who is working in the Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, approached the appellant seeking a job on compassionate basis for the respondent. The respondent's mother was intimated by t...
Packirisamy Chettiar Vs. R. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ189
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 1693 of 1991 is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Nagapattinam) made in R.C.A. No. 37 of 1989, dated 2.4.1991, confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, District Munsif, Thiruvarur in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1986, dated 30.10.1989.2. The civil revision petition was filed by Packiriswamy, who was the respondent before the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1986. The said petition was filed by Ramadoss, the respondent herein, praying for an order, of eviction under Section 1O(2)(i) and (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 from the premises bearing Door No. 25-B-1, T.S. No. 592, in Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur, of an extent of 752 sq.ft. Before the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur, Ramadoss claimed to have purchased the property from one Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai along with some other items of property under a sale deed, dated.7.3.1980, a registration copy whereof ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »