Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
K.L. Ramesh Vs. K.G. Nagaraja Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC220
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri (appellate authority), dated 13.10.1995 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 1991 confirming the order of the learned District Munsif, Hosur (Rent Controller), dated 19.7.1991 made in H.R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1988.2. The petitioner herein is the tenant. The respondent- landlord filed H.RCO.P.No.5 of 1988 on the file of the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller) for eviction of the tenant, under Section 14(l)(b) for demolition and construction of the building and under Section 10(3)(a)(i) for requirement of the building for the landlord's own occupation and for the occupation of any other member of his family, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller negatived the contention of the landlord with regard to demolition and construction of the building, under Section 14(l)(b), but, however held that the landlord was entitled for a relief u...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnamurthy and Others Vs. Sarangapani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad440; 1996(1)CTC280; (1996)IMLJ533
ORDER1. By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 30-10-1995 returnable by 15-11-1995. Interim stay was granted till then. On service of notice Mr. Yashod Vardhan entered appearance on behalf of the Respondents. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S. No. 340 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, of Pondicherry for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit properties. In the suit the petitioner along with the plaintiff took an objection that the court-fee paid is not sufficient as the plaintiff has to pay the court-fee ad valorem. The Learned District Munsif, who tried the same as a preliminary issue had that the suit has not been properly valued and correct court-fee has not been paid. Since the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the DistrictMunsif's Court, the learned District Munsif ordered the plain! to be returned with a ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Palaniswami Gounder (Dead) and Others Vs. C. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad160
ORDER1. The deponent of the affidavit contends as follows : The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,790/- from the respondent herein on the file of Sub Court and obtained a decree on 29-2-1984. The respondent has filed an appeal and it was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in Court in CMP No. 6291/1984. The respondent deposited the amount. He has been directed to give an undertaking not to alienate the bus. The appellant herein filed an application before the lower Court to send the thumb impression in Ex. A.1 and the thumb impression of the appellant taken in Court to the Forensic Science Department. The Experts have given their opinion that the impressions are identical and the same. This finding is against the appellant. The appellant failed to mark the document. As the expert opinion was against him, the applicant's father, filed an application to examine the Expert. The lower Court after perusal of the opinion of the Expert, had drawn an adverse inference agai...
Tag this Judgment!Alagiri and Another Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, E. 1 Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2978; 1996(2)CTC37
ORDER1. Petitioners Alagiri and Arunachalam, who are accused 1 and 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai, in C.C. 573 of 1992, facing the charges for the offence under Ss. 409 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code respectively have come forward with this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 1405 of 1993 on 1-6-1993 declining to discharge the accused for want of adequate materials and evidence for the trial. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner's wife Lakshmi and witness Annamalai, who is the complainant, entered into a partnership agreement and commenced a partnership business under the name and style of Royal Video House during 1983 at S.S. Colony, Madurai and they carried on the business in Video Cassettes and V.C.R. for hire and sale and during 1988 the first petitioner also entered into the partnership business directly and was carrying on the said trade. It was al...
Tag this Judgment!Anandan Vs. State by Inspector of Police Jolarpettai Police Station
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3248
1. The Appellant/accused who was tried for an offence punishable under S. 302 IPC before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, North Arcot District at Vellore, in S.C. No. 140 of 1988, has come forward with his appeal challenging the Correctness and validity of the Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered against him by the learned Sessions Judge on 24-2-1989, finding him guilty for the offence under section 304(II) IPC and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. It is stated that one Balakrishnan, examined as P.W. 1 and Chandrasekaran, the deceased are the sons of one Venkatachalam, a resident of Vakkanampatti Village, near Jolarpet were engaged in manufacturing beedies out of the tobacco leaves for the cost of labour being supplied by one Govindaraj of the same Village. The appellant/accused by name Anandan was also doing the same job like P.W. 1 and his brother P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1 P.W. 3 is the elder sister of the above sai...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas and Others Vs. Father Bilavendran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1947; 1996(1)CTC525
ORDER1. This revision has been filed by 'A' party/petitioners against the order passed in M.C. No. 58/92/(A2) dated 31-5-1993 by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. 2. The 19th respondent, Inspector of Police, Thammampatti, Attur Taluk, initiated the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, against the petitioners/ A party as also the respondents 1 to 18/B party. On entertaining the petition filed by the police, learned Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C., on 23-6-1992, following which both 'A' and 'B' parties appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. The matter was periodically adjourned for filing the written statement by respective parties on 21-7-1992, 2-8-1992, 15-9-1992, 29-9-1992 and 19-10-1992. In the mean time the petitioners/ 'A' party filed an application to send for some documents to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalingam and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State, by the Inspector of Police, Cr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3338
ORDER1. When these Criminal Revision Cases were taken up for hearing on 14-2-1996, Counsel representing the petitioners stated that they had no case on merits, and they pleaded for application of certain Government orders, passed by the State Government, notifying certain remissions to accused, similarly placed like the petitioner. At that point of time, it was urged by Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, in terms of the Government Order of 1987 (G.O. Ms. No. 1762, Home, dated 20-7-1987) petitioners cannot seek remission for the offence punishable under 471, I.P.C. and 224, I.P.C. Time was afforded to the petitioner till the next day (15-2-1996) to choose the course of action, they intended following.2. On 15-2-1996 counsel stated that there was no decision which had specifically taken note of the 1987 Government Order, except one by me, holding that the 1987 Government Order will stand in the way of applying the subsequent Government Orders on remission, in s...
Tag this Judgment!Raji Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2040
ORDER1. The revision petitioner was facing trial under Sections 354, 376 and 506(2), I.P.C. and convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, North Arcot Ambedkar District in his Judgment dated 6-11-1992 in S.C. No. 47 of 1992, under Sections 376 and 506(2), I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year in respect of the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for one year in respect of the offence under Section 506(2), I.P.C. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore North Arcot Ambedkar District in C.A. No. 182 of 1992, by his Judgment dated 16-8-1993, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. alone and set aside the order of trial court in so far as the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 506(2), I.P.C. are concerned. Against the order of first appellate Court, the present revisi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajasekaran Vs. Seethalakhmi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2123
ORDER1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband Rajasekaran, against the order dated 24-6-1993, passed in M.C. No. 11 of 1990, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindiyanam, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and Rs. 400/- p.m. to the wife/1st respondent herein and to the minor son/2nd respondent herein respectively, from the date of petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. 2. The short facts are necessary to decide the issue raised in this revision. On 30-4-1984, the 1st respondent Seethalakshmi was given in marriage to the petitioner Rajasekaran. The petitioner was given to various streedana articles like jewels etc. worth about Rs. 2 lakhs, at the time of marriage. After marriage they lived together at Salem. On 11-3-1988, the 2nd respondent Nivethan was born at Salem. After the birth of 2nd respondent, both the respondents were taken to the house of the father of 1st respondent. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K. Mahesh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR765(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the cases of three assessees for the asst. yr. 1972-73 for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for purpose of ascertaining the break-up value of the unquoted shares, the provision for gratuity should be treated as a 'liability' and should accordingly be allowed as a deduction 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a discount of 30% should be allowed from the break-up value as against 15% stipulated in r. 1D of the WT Rules ?' 2. The assessee held certain shares in the following companies and gifted them away as detailed below : ----------------------------------------------------------------------Name of Shares held in No. of shares giftedthe assessee and date of gift--------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »