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.
A. Thangaraj Vs. the District Collector and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC10
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner has complained that the order made by this Court on 24.3.1995 has not been obeyed by the respondents. By that order, the respondents were directed to pay the amount for which certificate has been issued in favour of the workmen for recovery of Rs. 19,484.35 with interest thereon, being the money value of the benefit payable by respondent-Board, as computed by the 2nd Addl. Labour Court, Madras in C.P.No. 320 of 1988 on 17.1.1990. The order of this Court was made after hearing counsel for respondents. Respondents are aware and are bound by the order. Four weeks time had been granted for making the payment.2. Respondent 3 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. It is stated therein that a writ petition 151 of 1996 challenging the award of Labour Court in C.P.No. 320 of 1988 was file by the respondent - Board in January 1996 and that the award was stayed by an order of the Court made on 5.1.1996. That stay order was obtained with...
E. Vannachi Alias Chellammal and anr. Vs. Chelliah Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ373
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners obtained a decree in a suit for partition and also got a final decree. The final decree was challenged in A.S. No. 694 of 1982 in this Court. By consent, an amount of owelty was fixed and a judgment was rendered on the basis of consent on 9.10.1991. In spite of the judgment being one by consent, the defendants filed Letters Patent Appeal. There was a long delay in representation of the papers viz., 972 days. The court, while condoning the delay, rejected the appeal on the ground that the owelty was increased with the consent of both parties and the appeal was not sustainable. That order was passed on 31.1.1995. The plaintiffs had deposited the owelty amount on 2.11.1995. A Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner has to construct a wall to demarcate the property allotted to the shares of the parties. At that stage, Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1995 was passed and a question was raised as to whether the Subordinate Judge could continue the proceeding...
Diamond Sea Foods Exports, Through Its Managing Partner D. Durairaj Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ48
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Decree-holder in O.S. No. 77 of 198,3, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner herein obtained a decree in the above suit on 29.7.1989. In the suit filed by the petitioner, it wanted relief in respect of various items. Item No. 1 related to the ownership of Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. TNT 9744. In respect of that car, the petitioner herein was declared as the owner, and the respondent herein was directed to surrender possession of the same. Against that portion of the decree which went against the petitioner, the matter is pending in appeal before this Court. Challenging the ownership of the vehicle as declared by the trial court, respondent has not filed any appeal.3. Respondent herein filed another suit as O.S. No. 106 of 1987, on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 31.8.1982. That suit was one for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 2,25,000. A decree was granted to the respondent herein on 5.2.1991....
Subbammal Vs. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ644
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This civil revision is filed by the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent herein has filed the suit for a decree declaring, that the share of Alamelu Ammal in the plaint schedule properties belongs to him or in the alternative for specific performance of the agreement by executing a gift settlement deed or release deed, as provided therein and have it registered. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The property originally belonged to one Peria Subbiah Gounder the grandfather of the plaintiff. He had a son by name Natthi Gounder. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of Natthi Gounder. The first defendant (revision petitioner) is the daughter of Peria Subbiah Gounder. Peria Subbiah Gounder died on 4.3.1962. After the death of Peria Subbiah Gounder, his wife Alamelu Ammal, son Natthi Gounder, plaintiff and the second defendant continued to live jointly. Natthi Gounder died on 13.11.1967 The first defendant, (daughter) Subbammal had ...
S. Pattabiraman Vs. S.P. Chandrasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ429
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1072 of 1996 arises from a proceeding initiated by first respondent herein as O.S. No. 680 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tindivananm. That suit was one for injunction to restrain respondents 2 to 4 herein and also the petitioner herein from getting electric connection to the building mentioned in the plaint.2. In the plaint, it is averred that the first respondent is the owner of the building and the same was let out to late Singarampilfair who was running a 'Raagi mundy business. The tenant died about ten years back. It is further said that on the death of the tenant, the tenancy arrangement came to an end and the same stood terminated in law. It is said that there was electric connection extended to the said premises and the same was disconnected consequent to non-user. It is also said that the disconnection took place about six years back and the premises was also not used by any one after the death of the tenant, and the b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. M. Kalpagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)336; [1997]227ITR733(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 8th November, 1982 the following questions are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the deletion of capital gains of Rs. 1,47,638 arising on the sale of lands measuring 7 grounds and 1878 sq. ft. not treated as appurtenant to the building, from the assessment of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the entire 10 grounds and 29 sq. ft. should be taken as the land appurtenant to the building and, therefore, the entire capital gains is exempt under S. 54 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessee sold a plot of land measuring 10 grounds and 29 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000 in the asst...
Golden Hills Estates Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC204; 1997(90)ELT301(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. An interesting question arises in this case under the Central Excise Rules. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are briefly as follows : The appellant is a Tea Estate. On 26-1-1996 the Central Excise authorities inspected the appellant-estate and found shortage of 18,987.05 Kilo grams of tea. At that time the appellant had a stock of 6080.5 Kilo grams of tea. The explanation offered by the appellant was that the quantity found to be shortage had been stolen from the warehouse and the matter was being investigated. The authority issued show cause notice on 17-2-1969 as to why penalty should not be imposed, the remaining stock of tea should not be confiscated along with land, buildings, machinery etc. and a duty should not be imposed on the missing goods. In the proceedings the first authority namely, the Collector, passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- confiscating the property and assessing the duty on the goods. On appeal, the Central Board of Excis...
A. Mohammed Ismail Vs. the Corporation of Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC455
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. Since these two writ petitions relate to one and the same transaction and the parties are one and the same, I am disposing of these writ petitions by this common order.2. In W.P.No.3637 of 1996, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to Tender/Auction notification published by the respondent in Malai Murasu, Madurai Edition dated 23.3.1996 and quash the same in respect of Serial No. 12, Lodge at Meenakshi Nilayam, Periyar Bus Stand, Madurai-1 and direct the respondent to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner in respect of Lodge at Meenakshi Nilayam, Periyar Bus Stand, Madurai.3. In W.P.No.6647 of 1996, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to re-tender/auction notification published by the respondent in Daily Thanthi, Madurai Edition, dated 30.5.1996 and quash the same in respect of Sl.No,6, Lodge at Meenakshi Nilayam, Per...
The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ408
Raju, J.1. The above petition has been filed for modifying the directions contained in paragraph 2 of our earlier order dated 27.2.1996 made in the main Writ Petition No. 8452 of 1991-, which reads as hereunder:2. The petitioner applied for 'Freedom Fighters' Pension by his application dated 27.3.1994. When the application was pending, the Government of India formulated a scheme known as 'Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The petitioner was sanctioned Rs. 750 per month from 17.10.1989 vide Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India Sanction Order No. 29/THR/614/74-FF-INA, dated 6.11.1989. It is also stated that the other freedom fighters who have applied along with the petitioner in the year 1974 and thereafter they have received the pension from 1.8.1980 irrespective of date of sanction under the scheme of the year 1.8.1980. However, the respondent has sanctioned the pension under this scheme only from 17.10.1989. In our opinion the petitioner would be entitled to recei...
M/S. Gounder and Co. Vs. B.S. Hegde
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC219
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Srinivasan, J.1. In these two appeals, three matters are in dispute. The appellant entered into contracts with the 2nd respondent for the purpose of handling and transporting goods at the Coimbatore Main Depot of the 2nd respondent and the Sub-depots around Coimbatore City for the period 16.11.1978 to15.11.1980. As some disputes arose between the Parties regarding the claims made by the appellant the matter was referred to arbitrator.2. The arbitrator accepted the claims made by the appellant to some extent and passed an award. The appellant filed Original Petition for filing the award into court and for passing a decree in terms of the award, while the 2nd respondent filed a petition for setting aside the award. Both the petitions were heard together by a learned judge of this Court, who set aside the award of the Arbitrator with reference to three matters and confirmed the same in other respects. The three claims, with regard to which, the award has been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »