Chennai Court July 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.
Radha Bai Vs. Sri Gangatheeswarar Devasthanam, Represented by Its Exec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ320
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the respondent Devasthanam, filed an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The trial court and the lower appellate court have dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and also the appeal filed by the tenant. The tenant has now preferred the above revision against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1989 of the IVth Additional City Civil Court, Madras, in C.M.A. No: 144 of 1988.2. During the pendency of the above revision Act 2 of 1996 was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu called the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force at once. Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922 was amended (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). In Sub-section (3), in the first proviso, after Clause (e), the following clause was added, namely:(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belon...
The Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ204
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, represented by its Senior Regional Manager, Thanjavur against its employees, who are second respondent in all the writ petitions. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Building, Madras-104.2. W.P. No. 4490 of 1987 is filed for quashing the order passed by the first respondent herein in I.D. No. 329 of 1985 dated, 28.1.1987. W.P. No. 4491 of 1987 is field against the order passed by the first respondent herein in I.D. No. 268 of 1985, dated 4.2.1987. W.P. No. 4492 of 1987 is filed against the order passed by the first respondent herein in I.D. No. 251 of 1985 dated, 4.2.1987. W.P. No. 4493 of 1987 is filed against the order passed by the first respondent herein in I.D. No. 240 of 1985 dated 28.1.1987.3. In all these four cases, the I Additional Labour Court, after ...
Lakshmi Ammal Alias Pinnayel and ors. Vs. Pappathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ543
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 529 of 1974 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Karur, who succeeded before the trial court but lost before the first appellate court. The suit was for possession as also past and future profits and directing the defendants to deliver possession and for costs. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that the suit property belonged to one Venkatarama Reddiar ancestrally; that the said Venkatarama Reddiar married the first plaintiff according to the Hindu customs and rites; that there was no issue for them for pretty some time which was the cause for disruption of family harmony and that the same resulted in the execution of a maintenance release deed by the first plaintiff on 10.8.1943 in favour of her husband Venkatarama Reddiar marked as Ex. B-1. It was claimed that the said maintenance release deed was not acted upon and, subsequently they lived together as husband and wife and in o...
V.M. Rao (individual) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR813(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal right in holding that the compulsory deposits were includible in the net wealth and that market value should be taken to be the face value ?' 2. The assessee, an individual, has been making compulsory deposits under the Compulsory Deposit (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 read with the Compulsory Deposit (Income-tax Payers) Scheme, 1974. For the assessment year 1975-76, the valuation dated is March 31, 1975. The compulsory deposits made as on the valuation date amounted to Rs. 8,260. The assessee did not include the compulsory deposits in the net wealth returned but the Wealth-tax Officer included the same in the net wealth. On appeal, it was contended by the assessee that the deposit was n...
Senniappan M. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ938Mad
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated October 24, 1986, in A. G. A. Case No. 22 of 1986 of the first respondent. The petitioner was employed in the third respondent-company in March, 1970, as an apprentice. He was absorbed in service on March 12, 1972, as a regular employee. On April 6, 1985, he resigned his job. The third respondent paid a sum of Rs. 6.559.85 to the petitioner towards gratuity for 11 years of service only. Hence he filed an application before the second respondent claiming the balance of gratuity of Rs. 2,400. The third respondent tiled a counter-affidavit stating that in the period of two years from March 23, 1970, to March 12, 1972, there were break in service due to the petitioner's participation in several one-day strikes. The third respondent contended that by applying the rule of 240 days work in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the break, there was no continuity o...
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ977Mad; (1997)IMLJ164
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited represented by its Secretary against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated May 27, 1987 and to issue direction to the first respondent and direct the first respondent to enforce the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the allied scheme against the second respondent.3. The case of the petitioner is that the Neyveli Lignite Corporation owns a guest house and it was Teased out to the second respondent with effect from October 1, 1983. The second respondent recruited their own personnel through agencies viz., the Self Employment Council to fill up the various posts in the Guest House. All the employees employed in the Guest House were recruited and are under the control and supervision of the second respondent. The petitioner has no connection or authority over the ma...
P. Kuppammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC208
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this contempt application against the respondent on the ground that contrary to the order of interim stay granted by this Court, the respondents had demolished the superstructure put up by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had encroached upon the government porambokc land and put up the construction. Her case is that without following the procedure laid down under the Madias Land Encroachment Act, the respondents tried to evict the petitioner. Hence the writ petition has been filed.2. On 23.5.95 this Court passed the following order;'In view of the petitioner's averment that no notice under Section 7 of the Act was given to her, notice of motion returnable in three weeks. Petitioner not to be dispossessed by respondent in the meanwhile. Government Advocate is directed to take notice.'Subsequently the W.M.P. was listed on 30.6.95 and this Court passed the following order:'Interim order is extended by two weeks. Post the writ petitio...
Dharman and Six ors. Vs. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC279
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. Defendants 2 to 7 in O.S.No.338 of 1977 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ariyalur, who succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the First Appellate Court, are the appellants in the above second appeal. The suit came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of the plaintiff's title over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit properties by the plaintiff or in the alternative the relief of possession and future mesne profits and for costs. The plaintiff is the brother's son of the first defendant, who died pending suit. The second defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant and the third and fourth defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff and the first defendant respectively. Defendants 5 to 7 are daughters of the first defendant, who were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The case of the plai...
O.M.S. Abdul Basith Alim Sahib Vs. S.S. Mohamed Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC452; (1996)IIMLJ240
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2859 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Shencottai. Originally he filed the suit for bare injunction against the respondent. Subsequently he filed I.A.No.124 of 1995 seeking for amendment of the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession. The trial court had dismissed he application against which the present revision has been filed.2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that though the suit had been filed originally for bare injunction, the amendment sought for by the petitioner for recovery of possession would not amount to fresh cause of action or a new case. Further the amendments always should be liberally ordered when such amendments do not cause prejudice to the respondent, He also referred to two judgments reported in Adusmilli Venkateswar Rao v. Chalasani Hymavathi, : AIR1990AP161 and Valliammal v. Periasamy Thevar, 1990 (II) MLJ 500.3. It is to be seen that the suit had been filed for bare inj...
Sankar Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC609
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. One Sankar (Petitioner) is the detenu. He, it is said, is a goonda. Apart from the ground case the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 14.10.1995, he had come to adverse notice in five other cases.2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai (first respondent) clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention, under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), in his proceedings No. l23/BDFGIS/95 dated 19.12.1995 with a view to preventing him from acting in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.3. Mr.V. Gopinath, Learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. K. Selvarangan and N.S. Nappinai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the lone and sole ground, namely, that the request for furnishing a copy of the te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »