Chennai Court March 1996 Judgments
Saj Flight Services (P.) Limited Vs. P.T. Gopala Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas344(Mad)
N. Arumugham J.1. On ordering notice of motion, I have heard the Bar of for the respective parties for and against the impugned order passed by the XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in M.P. No. 711 of 1996 in C.C. No. 2720 of 1995 dated February 20, 1996, thereby discharging the respondent/accused of the offence under section 138 and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The two grounds upon which the revision was sought to be admitted are, firstly while filing a private complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the revision petitioner/complainant against the respondent/accused for the offence under section 138 and 141(2) of the Act, on the basis of a cheque issued on February 18,1995, for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 which bounced subsequently followed by the issuance of legal notice with no reply. However, the learned magistrate was not correct in holding that the complaint was bad for not adding the other...
Tag this Judgment!Natesan Vs. Chinnachi Kandar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad468; 1996(1)CTC699
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 120 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karun, for declaration declaring that the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 5 are the owners of the suit properties, for recovery of possession of the same from thefirst defendant, for recovery of Rs. 9,000/-as past mesne profits and for recovery of future profits.2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint is as follows:--The plaintiff is the son of Karunchami Kandar, who died in the year 1974 leaving behind him the plaintiff and the Defendants 2 to 5 as his heirs. The second defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, while the Defendants 3 to 5 are brothers and sister of the plaintiff. The suit plaintiff originally belonged to one Thoppakkutti alias Nallachi Kandar, son of Nallachi Kandar. It was purchased by the plaintiffs father on 10-3-1930 for a sum of Rs. 1000/- under Ex. A-l. The plaintiff's father was in possession of the property. Since the plaintiff's father had to leave for Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu Gounder (Died) Bakkiam and Two ors. Vs. Manikavalli and Two ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC532
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. C.M.P.17112 of 1994 is to excuse the delay of 959 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.2. C.M.P.17113 of 1994 is to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the appellant.3. CM.P.17114 of 1994 is to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.4. C.M.P.17115 of 1994 is for stay of the operation of the decree of the lower court.5. The case of the petitioners is that one Nachimuthu Goundar filed the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 237 of 1987 on line file of Sub-Court, Udumalpet in respect of 'B' schedule property alone. He died on 4.9.91. He had executed a Will dated 9.4.90 by which the petitioners arc the legal representatives who arc entitled for the properties. Hence they are the persons interested in the proceeding.6. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein for partition and a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court. The respondents filed I.A.1748...
Tag this Judgment!Deivanai Ammal Vs. P.K.R. Athmaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC622
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 391 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Court, Srivilliputhur is the appellant.2. She filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,877.60 being the balance of value of handloom cloth purchased by defendants on credit basis, on 24.10.1977 from the plaintiffs shop at Rajapalayam on agreeing to pay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as per trade usage and custom.3. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are briefly as follows:-The plaintiff is doing business in handloom and power loom clothes at Rajapalayam under the name and style of 'Sri Venkataswara Handlooms' She is the sole proprietrix. The defendants are doing business in handloom and had dealing with the plaintiff. The defendants purchased handloom clothes on 24.10.1977 as follows:-Invoice Nos. Date Amount182 24.10.1977 Rs. 1,429.60183 -do- 1,429.60184 -do- 1,429.60185 -do- 1,429.60186 -do- 1,429.60187 -do- 1,429.60The total amount comes to Rs. 8,577.60...
Tag this Judgment!M. Radhakrishnan Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC133; (1996)IIMLJ464
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 129 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Palani is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the suit for declaration declaring that his correct date of birth was 11.1.1948, he belongs to Theeya Community and in consequence, a direction to the defendants to make suitable corrections in the S.S.L.C. Book.2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows: The Plaintiff is the permanent resident of Agraharam, A. Kaliamputhur, Palani Taluk. His father died while he was young and he was brought up by his mother Vellaiammal, who is an illiterate. The plaintiff was born on 11.1.1948 in the headquarters hospital at Coimbatore. His date of birth was reported by the Medical Officer of the hospital and the same was registered in the Coimbatore Municipality. The plaintiff belongs to Theeya Community. But it is generally mentioned as Hindu in the birth extract maintained in the Municipality at Coimbatore. Th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rukmani Vs. R. Narayani and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ477
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 1689 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the suit for delivery of possession of the suit properties, arrears of rent and for future damages.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one R. Janardhanan as per the registered partition deed dated 31.12.1951. The said Janardhanan sold the suit property to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 2.11.1978 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff thus became the owner of the suit property and she is paying house tax therefor. The previous owner Janardhanan allowed the Uppilipalayam Panchayat to run a school in the suit properties and the panchayat was running a school for some time. After 10 years, the panchayat vacated the school. One Raghava Mannadiar was employed as a watchman-cum-peon in the school run by the panchayat. The said Raghava Mannadiar died about 7 or 8 years ago. W...
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Vel Press Represented by K.G. Vittal (K.G. Vittal Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ304
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 2504 of 1976, on the file of IX Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before this Court. Defendant- Press was represented by its partner K.G. Vittal. During the pendency of the second appeal, the said Vittal died, and his legal representatives have been brought on record as additional appellants.2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are collectively referred to as tenant under the respondent-Temple.3. The defendant was admittedly a tenant under the respondent. Respondent is a public Temple and, therefore, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act have no application. Notice was issued terminating the tenancy as evidenced by Ex. A-1, and as per Ex. A-2, the appellant accepted the same. The case of the respondent is that in spite of the termination of the tenancy, the tenant has not surrendered vacant possession, which has necessitated the suit.4. In his written statement, the defendant conte...
Tag this Judgment!Marakkal Vs. Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad476
ORDER1. Petitioner Marakkal, the wifeof late S. Rengasamy, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the Government of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Public Department, Madras respectively, in their proceedings No. 129/174/81-FFSZ dated 12-9-1985 and L.W. No. 8879/81-14-Public (pp. IV) Department, D/- 23-4-1986 and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to grant pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre) and Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme.2. In support of the said writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit in which she has stated that her husband, late S. Rengasamy was a Freedom Fighter and he participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and also in Quit Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Pakkiri Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ385
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30-8-1988, in S.C. No. 188 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Court, South Arcot District at Cuddalore, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. Originally the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on the allegation that the appellant since had a grievance, that his father, the deceased Ramalingam, after mortgaging his land, handed over the amount to his daughter, without giving any money to the appellant. On 13-5-1987, at about 5.30 p.m. at Kadapperikuppam, opposite to the house of Panchayat Union Leader, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his father, the deceased Ramalingam and beat him with his hands and pushed him on the road and by catching hold of his legs pulled him on the road up to Chavukkuthope, thereby the deceased sustained injuries on all over his body, including his head with the result he died. 3. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Vijayalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR637(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department in the case of three assessees who are partners in the same firm, the Tribunal referred the following question of law, relating to the assessment year 1978-79, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, in the case of a partner of a firm, which had become defunct, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the defunct firm which had closed its business in the assessment year 1978-79 must be carried forward and set off against the profits of the assessee from other business in the assessment year 1979-80 ?' 2. The assessees were partners in a firm by name Sree Abirami Cotton Mills. This firm had been incurring losses year after year right from its inception. The firm was sold as a going concern in the course of the year 1978-79. The assessees had certain carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation relat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »