Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
Gnanambika Mills Ltd. Vs. the Director General, Employees State Insura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR1917]; (1996)IILLJ149Mad; (1996)IMLJ665
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in E.S.I. O.P.No. 162/1984 on July 2, 1985.2. The said O.P. was filed by the petitioner for declaring the order, passed by the first respondent on November 24, 1980 which was confirmed by the second respondent on June 18, 1984 in which the petitioner was directed to pay damages of Rs. 3,37,208/-3. The learned District Judge, after an enquiry has dismissed the said application. In the present appeal, among other grounds, the appellant has taken a ground to the effect that the Court below ought to have seen that as per the decision of this Court in Diocesin Press v. Regional Director (E.S.I.) Corporation (W.P.No. 2391/1978) the order levying damages by the second respondent in not sustainable.4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has filed C.M.P. No. 13394 of 1993, a petition under Order 41, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the permission of this Court to raise a...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Vs. Gurunathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad415
1. The second defendant in O. S. No. 116 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif of Sankari at Salam, who was the 4th respondent also in A. S. No. 13 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs as owners are absolutely entitled to be in possession of the properties and for restraining the defendants, their men and servants by a permanent injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs.3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit properties belong to the plaintiffs absolutely as ancestral properties; that the first plaintiff had three sons, viz, the second defendant and plaintiffs 2 and 3, that the third defendant is the wife of the second defendant, that the suit properties along with another extent of eight cents in the same survey number are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the se...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaran Alias Tembi and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1769
ORDER1. This revision is against the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 42 of 1993 in Sessions Case No. 183 of 1992 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari, dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioners. 2. There are totally 13 accused. The allegation is that on 24-5-1991 at about 8.30 a.m. all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant Mani severely by indiscriminate beating with the Thadi, Kuthukol etc. and tied him with the tree and again inflicted injuries all over the body of P.W.1, the victim. On receipt of this news about the highhanded action of the petitioners, the Sub-Inspector of Police and a constable came there and rescued the complainant by unlying the rope with which he was tied with the tree. During the process, the Police Officers viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable were insulted by the accused persons by using filthy language. While a witness by name Kandaswamy helped the police officials b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Mahesh Sanjay Trust and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR752(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, in respect of three assessees : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, which is a private trust, with beneficiaries, whose shares are indeterminate, is eligible for relief under section 80L for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 ?' 2. The assessee is a private trust of which Sri T. S. Krishna was the trustee. It is common ground that it is a discretionary trust in view of the fact that the shares of the beneficiaries are not ascertainable. Though the trusts are different trusts, this fact is common. The issue that arose for consideration was, whether, the assessee would be eligible for relief under section 80L of the Act. 3. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee's status shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Central Hameedia Stores and Two ors. Vs. Valliammmal @ Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC330
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P. 11/87 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sankarankoil to evict the petitioners herein on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.2. The respondent's case is that the monthly rent for the premises is Rs. 500/- of which Rs. 350/- is to be paid every month on or before 5th of succeeding month and Rs. 150/- has to be paid in the consolidated basis, once in six months. The petitioners failed to pay the rent from 30th March to 30th September, accruing to Rs. 900/- at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m and failed to pay the entire rent from 1.9.86 to 30.9.87. The building is 60 years old and the respondent wants to demolish the existing superstructure and put up the new building in order to augment the income.3. The petitioners opposed the application by filing counter stating that there is no arrears at all and the agreed rent is only Rs. 350/- p.m. and since the...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami Vs. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC479
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in O.S. No. 983 of 1989. He obtained the decree against the respondent herein and filed E.P.368/91 for attachment of the house owned by the respondent. The respondent remained ex-parte in the suit as well as in the E.P when the order of attachment was made. Subsequently he filed E.A. No. 558 of 1993 to raise the attachment, claiming that the respondent is an agriculturist and as per Section 60, C.P.C. there is a bar for attachment of the house of an agriculturist and hence the order of attachment has to be raised.2. The petitioner herein opposed the application on the ground that notice in the attachment application was served on the respondent he has not taken any objection and the order of attachment was made. Subsequently the petitioner moved the executing court for reduction of upset price and at that time also the respondent did not take any objection. The respondent is doing milk business and he has let out a portio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. Krishnasami Alias Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ267
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2556 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Karur, is the appellant herein. Defendants 1 to 6 are the respondents.2. For the sake of convenience, reference to the parties in this appeal is made as per their array in the suit.3. Plaintiff and the 6th defendant are sons of late Nachimuthu Gounder. Nachimuthu Gounder was the owner of all the plaint items. Plaint Item 1 is having an extent of 2 acres 8 cents. Item 2 is having 2 acres 48 cents, and Item 3 is having 36 cents, altogether 4 acres 92 cents. It is averred in the plaint that Nachimuthu Gounder was in possession of all these items, having obtained the same as per partition deed dated 24.12.1959. It is said that there was same proposal to form a house building society in Pallappatti under the Chairmanship of one Koolayappa Rowther. First defendant opposed the formation of the Society under the Chairmanship of Koolayappa Rowther, and he also wanted Nachimuthu Gounder not to gi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Suresh Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad396; (1996)IMLJ538
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus in this writ petition, directing the respondents to validate the community certificate issued by the Tahsil-dar, Mayiladuthurai and accept the petitioner's community certificate treating the petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe belonging to Kattunaicken community.2. The petitioner states that he studied Bachelor of Engineering, Mechanical Branch, in Alagappa Engineering College, Karaikudi from 1989 to 1993 and secured degree. While he was studying in the said college the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, the second respondent herein enquired about the community certificate of the petitioner as per the direction of the District Collector of Thanjavur. The petitioner while securing the seat in the engineering college had submitted his community certificate as Kattunaicken community, a Scheduled Tribe community. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after completion of the enquiry, confirmed that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi and Another Vs. Veluchamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ418; II(1996)DMC286
ORDER1. The 1st Petitioner/wife Smt. Kamatchi filed a petition for maintenance against her husband in M.C. No. 247/77 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate No. 1, Ramanathapuram, claiming maintenance for herself and for her two children claiming Rs. 200/- p.m. for herself and Rs. 50/- p.m. each for her children. 2. On 28-2-1978, after an elaborate enquiry, the learned Magistrate passed an order, granting maintenance of Rs. 30/- p.m. to the wife, to a sum of Rs. 70/- p.m. After a lapse of 8 years, since the petitioner/wife felt that the maintenance awarded in the year 1978 was not sufficient to meet the expenditure, she filed another petition on 17-11-86 in Crl.M.P. No. 6770-A/86 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ramanathapuram, claiming for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 250/- p.m. for herself and Rs. 200/- for her son and since the daughter got married, the petitioner did not claim any maintenance for the daughter. On this petition, the respondent/husband was summoned and...
Tag this Judgment!Thangamuthu and Others Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3815
ORDER1. In S.C. No. 136 of 1991, on the file of 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, the petitioners were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 451, 427, 323, 324, 323 r/w. 149, 324 r/w. 149, 366 and 366 r/w. 149, I.P.C., on the allegations that on 9-11-1989 at about 5.30 p.m., all the accused/petitioner's formed themselves into unlawful assembly and committed rioting, armed themselves with dangerous weapons, trespassed into the house of P.W. 4 Visalakshi and assaulted P.W. 1 Kuppusamy and P.W. 2 Saraswathi, caused damage to the door of the house of P.W. 4 Visalakshi and forcibly abducted her.2. The trial Court after completion of trial by judgment dated 28-4-1992, convicted and sentenced A-1, A-3 and A-6 under Section 147, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for three months each, convicted and sentenced A-2, A-4 and A-5 under Section 148, I.P.C. and to undergo R. I. for four months each. A-1 to A-6 were convicted and sentenced under Section 451, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »