Chennai Court February 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.
S. Raj and Four ors. Vs. Rajakaniammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC270
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant and legal heirs of second defendant in O.S.No.101 of 1983, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, are the appellants before this Court.2. First respondent herein filed the above suit for partition on the following grounds: The property originally belonged to one Abubucker Maricar, his brothers Mohammed Ali, Muthu Wappa and his three sisters Mohammed Bathumuthu, Sheera Mudalial, and Mohideen Bathu and their mother Ahammed Meera Ammal. The shares of all the daughters, i.e., 21/72 shares were purchased by the plaintiff on 27.9.1979 as per Ex. A.I. It is seen that the mother had executed a gift of her l/8th share in the property to her son Muthu Wappa, i.e., Ex.A.2, dated 18.5.1971. Later, Muthu Wappa sold that share to the plaintiff herein, as per Ex. A.3. On the basis of these documents, plaintiff claims that she is entitled to 30/72 shares in the suit property. She wants the same to be partitioned by metes and bound...
Susheela Aravind Vs. C.A. Aboobacker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ140
Srinivasan, J.1. The fourth respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The parties will be referred to according to their rank in the writ petition.2. The petitioners owned two buildings, situate within Mahe Municipality, and leased out the same to one M/s. Chandramathi and the fourth respondent. The said two persons entered into a partnership on 1.4.1975, to run a business under the name and style of 'Mahe Metals' for manufacturing aluminum foils. Application was made for issue of licence under Section 355 of the Pondicherry Municipal Decree (Levy and Validation of Taxes, Duties, Cesses and Fees) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and for permission under Section 356 of the said Act. The permission under Section 356 of the Act was issued in favour of Thirumathi C.V. Chandramathi, Thavakkara House, Near Konar Vayal-cettancoon-Tellicherry, Door No. 685/1, Parakkal, Mahe under licence No. 49/76/LAD/C.5 Pondicherry dated 2.8.1976. The address mentioned in the licence for location of ...
S.P. Vedanayagam Vs. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ432
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. On 23.1.1996, I passed the following order after hearing the counsel for the petitioner:It is contended by the petitioner that the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 has not been complied with at all and the respondents have straight away proceeded with the publication in the Gazette about the acquisition and issued notice under Section 5(1) of the Act. The Government Pleader is directed to produce the records before this Court on the adjourned hearing date, in order to verify whether the statement made by the petitioner is correct or false. Past the writ petition for orders on 13.2.1996.There will be an interim stay of dispossession till 13.2.1996. Notice.3. Today, the learned Government Pleader placed the records before this Court and argued the case on the basis of the instructions received by him. Admittedly, the procedure co...
R. Thandavarayan Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ413
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order passed in Ref. Pers/PF.330/95/632, dated 3.8.1995 and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the housing documents and give service certificate and relieving order in favour of the petitioner by adjusting the amount alleged to be due from the petitioner with exgratia amount as sanctioned to the other employees under similar circumstances by issuing a writ or certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of a writ or any other appropriate relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1976 and on the date of relieving his service he was working as Senior Accountant at the Regional Office, Cuddalore. Since the petitioner's request to post him at Madras or Cuddalore was ...
R.A. Abdul Rahim Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas234(Mad); 1997(57)ECC121
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, confirming the order of the first authority, levying penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), this appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 54 of the Act. 2. One Abdul Hameed, who is a chartered accountant in Singapore and a person resident outside India, has brought certain goods from Singapore to India, paid customs duty therefore and handed over the goods to the appellant for being sold and the appellant after selling the said goods has deposited the sale proceeds in the savings bank account in India Bank, Mylapore, held by the said Abdul Hameed in the joint names of himself, his wife and son, the latter two being resident in India. The said sale proceeds deposited are Rs. 56,000 deposited on August 24, 1982, and Rs. 35,000 deposited on August 26, 1982. 3. On the abov...
Sampathkumar Vs. Padmavathy and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC371
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner (husband) against the ex parte order of maintenance ordered in favour of respondents (wife and children) at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- p.m. for all the respondents in M.C. No. 5 of 1991 on the file of Judicial Magistrate V, Salem.2. Originally, first respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cri.P.C., before the said Magistrate for herself and on behalf of her two children, claiming a total maintenance of Rs. 1,200/- p.m. This petition, though it was dated 15.3.1993, was taken on file of5.4.1993 by the Magistrate. On receipt of summons, petitioner entered appearance and filed his counter.3. On 14.2.1992, first respondent was examined as P.W.I and she was cross-examined by the petitioner. Subsequently, first respondent has closed her evidence and the matter was posted for examination of the petitioner. Since, on that appointed day, the petitioner did not appear before the Court, on the basis of the eviden...
Union of India (Uoi), by Director of Enforcement Vs. S.K. Senjan Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC115
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. In these appeals by the Enforcement Director under Section 54 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) only short point is involved. Under Section 18(2) of the Act the contravention charged was upheld by the first authority but the same was reversed by the appellate Board. The relevant export was made on 4.7.1978. But out of the total amount of Rs. 58,983.66, a sum of Rs. 22,226.75 corresponding to US $ 2725 has not been repatriated and that is why the first authority levied penalty of Rs. 4,000 on the respondent firm M/s. S.K. Senjan Chettiar & Sons and of a sum of Rs. 1,000 on its partner S.A. Rajamannar. (Out of these two appeals one appeal relates to the penalty levied on the firm and the other appeal relates to penalty levied on the partner).2. These penalties were levied by the first authority on the footing that the respondent-firm allowed the importer to take delivery of the goods eventhough the importer did not pay fu...
N. Abdul Azeez Vs. S. Mohamed Hanifa and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad1
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 415 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court,- Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,795/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25-4-1975 under Ex. A-1. According to the plaintiff, the defendants executed a promissory note for Rs. 5000/- on 25-4-1975 in favour of Kairoon Bibi on 26-3-78 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent. The plaintiff got assignment of the promissory note from Kairoon Bibi on payment of consideration provided in the promissory note. Since the defendants failed to comply with the demand as per his notice dated 21-4-1978. he laid the above suit.2. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant with the following contentions :--The first defendant did not execute the suit promissory note being along with the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff's assignor and the 2nd defendant did not receive the consideration of Rs. 5000/- from the p...
United Bank of India, Madras Vs. Bank of Baroda, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad23
1. The above Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 25-8-1982 in A. S. No. 48 of 1982, made by way of referring the judgment and decree of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 14-4-1981 in O.S. No. 8148 of 1978. The defendant Bank, which succeeded before the trial Court, but failed before the lower appellate Court, has come up before this Court with the above second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant-Bank presented to the plaintiff bank for realisation and payment a demand draft purported to be drawn on the plaintiff-bank and purported to be for Rs. 11,260/- and purported to be payable to one Mr. A. N. Rangarajan. Having regard to the fact that the draft was presented for payment by a collecting banker, the plaintiff claims to have immediately honoured the payment, without further scrutiny and even before the receipt of the advice from the i...
V. Sheemathangam (Minor) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad156
ORDER1. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 27-11-1995 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11022 of 1995 only on the ground that this Court followed the Division Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court consisting of two Honourable Judges in the case of 'Dr. Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India, : (1995)1SCC269 as against the Division Bench Judgment of the SupremeCourt consisting of three Honourable Judges in the case of 'Minor A. Periakaruppan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, : [1971]2SCR430 , contending that in case of conflict of views between two Division Bench Judgments of the Supreme Court, the view taken by a Bench consisting of larger number of Judges should be followed irrespective of the fact that it was an earlier Judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 11022 of 1995 was filed by the applicant seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to select and admit the petitioner to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1995-96. She had applied f...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »