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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uma Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC543
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No.82 of 1983 and also C.M.P. Nos. 2850 and 4344 of 1994.2. Learned single Judge allowing the C.M.Ps., has also allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in the following terms:-'In the result, C.M.P.Nos.2850 and 4344 of 1994 are allowed. The appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law, after the plaint is amended as prayed for in CMP No. 2850 of 1994. The plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendment in the trial Court. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement in the light of the amendment made in the plaint and decide the suit afresh within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order after framing...
Krishnan Vs. Muthu Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad57; (1997)IMLJ9
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in O.S. 1282 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur against the order dated 28th April, 1989 in R.E.P. No. 161 of 1987. The present R.E.P. No. 161 of 1987 was filed under Order 21, Rule 11 of C.P.P. to deliver possession of the property in question. O.S. 1282 of 1968 was filed by the petitioner herein for usufructuary mortgage and for possession. One Chinnathambi Gounder, rather of the respondents 1 to 16 herein was the defendant in the said suit. The said Chinnathambi Gounder filed O.S. 1051 of 1968 for declaration on his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The present petitioner Krishnan was the 5th defendant in the said suit. Both the suits were tried together. The learned Principal District Munsif of Sankari decreed the suit O.S. 1282 of 1968 and dismissed ...
Mohan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ22
M. Karpagavinayagam 1. In S.C. No. 60 of 1988, on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Salem, the appellant Mohan was tried and convicted and sentenced to life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., on the allegation that on 19-9-1987, at 6.00 a.m. in Babu Nagar, Ammapet, Salem, the appellant stabbed his wife the deceased Prema with the pen-knife (M.O. 3) and caused her death.2. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, filed Exs. P1 to P16 and marked M.Os 1 to 7.3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-The appellant Mohan is the husband of the deceased Prema. They were residing at Door No. 66, in Nadhimullahkhan Street, Baby Nagar, Ammapet, Salem along with their children. P.W. 1 Thulasiraman, P.W. 2 Dhanam wife of Ramamurthi, P.W. 3 Dhanam wife of Gopal, were all neighbours. One Gopi, the brother-in-law of the appellant, who was the resident of the same area used to come often to the house of the appellant and took the deceased to cinema th...
Stanley Vs. State Through the Superintendent of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1217
ORDER1. Heard. 2. During the pendency of the appeal in C.A. No. 312 of 1996 before this Court challenging the correctness of the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in C.C. No. 283 of 1993 dated 19-3-1996 finding the appellant guilty for the offences under Ss. 8(c) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him accordingly to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of the appellant to pay the fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three more years, the appellant-accused has filed this petition under S. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of the sentence recorded against him by the trial Court. 3. On ordering notice to the respondent, a counter statement was filed on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, I have heard the Bar for the respective partie...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR296(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the direction of this Court, dt. 23rd March, 1983, in T.C.P. Nos. 449 and 450 of 1982, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the year 1972-73 under s. 147(b) was invalid 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Departmental appeal as infructuous ?' 2. Subsequent to the completion of the original assessment in the asst. yr. 1972-73 on 12th March, 1973, the ITO reopened the assessment on the basis of information received in the form of audit objection. In the original assessment a sum of Rs. 6,37,003 was claimed and allowed as deduction as capital expenditure on scientific research under s. 35(2) of the Act. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 6,03,632 related to the laboratory building, the construction of...
i. Sundaram Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Tamil Nadu E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2718]; (1997)ILLJ317Mad; (1996)IIMLJ331
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by a Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade 1, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board challenging the order of dismissal dated September 16, 1986 by the second respondent as confirmed by the third respondent dated July 21, 1987.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a qualified L.C.E. On August 14, 1973 second respondent appointed the petitioner as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board. In October, 1979 the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer, (Civil) Grade I. During 1985 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for 13 charges. An enquiry was conducted after getting his explanation. Enquiry officer has submitted his report on September 3, 1985. He was given second show-case notice for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. After getting the explanation, the second respondent passed final order on September 16, 1986. He appealed to the Chairman the third respondent herein and the same was rejected on November 7, 1986. Lea...
S. Venkataraman Vs. L. Vijayasaratha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC503
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The husband has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal against the dismissal of his O.P. No. 876 of 1991 on the file of the Additional' Principal Family Court, Madras by order dated 31.7.1992. The said O.P. was filed for dissolution of marriage that took place on 21.8.1987 between him and the respondent-wife, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) respectively of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Admittedly, both the spouses were living together till August, 1989, and thereafter they got separated. The original petition was filed on or about 23.1.1991.3. The nature of alleged cruelty pleaded by the petitioner in the petition is briefly as follows: The respondent refused to consummate the marriage on the nuptials day and on the following days, which caused great anxiety and mental strain to the petitioner. Even on the honey-moon days, there was no normal sexual life between the parties and there was no 'w...
Sri Ahobila Madam Represented by Its Power Agent S. Sarangachariar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ528
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner Madam is a public trust, represented by its power agent S. Sarangachariar. One Nagammal, mother of the second respondent herein was cultivating an extent of 2.34 acres in S.No. 459, Perugavazhndhan village, Mannargudi Taluk. As she was in arrears of rent, the petitioner Madam filed an application for eviction in P.T.No. 617 of 1987 under Section 19(3) of Act 57 of 1961 and the said application was allowed and thereafter E.P.No. 19 of 1988 was filed for possession of the property and the said execution petition was ordered on 7.10.1988 pursuant to which the petitioner Madam took possession of the land on 21.12.1988. Thereafter, the said Nagammal filed an appeal seeking restoration of possession which was dismissed on 25.8.1989 by the Revenue Court, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Nagammal came forward with a C.R.P. in C.R.P.No. 2935 of 1990 on the file of this Court.2. Whileso, the second respondent (Vedaratnam) claiming himself...
Ai Ameen Youth Movement Represented by Its Vice President, K. Anwar Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ308
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. When the writ appeal came up for hearing, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, as the contentions raised in the writ appeal are similar to those raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is posted along with the writ appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.2. In the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order, G.O. Ms. No. 97, Municipal Administration, Water Supply Department, dated 24.8.1994 constituting Koothanallur Town Panchayat area as Koothanaluur 3rd grade Municipality under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.3. The contention urged before us is that the procedure required to be followed as per Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act has not been followed, inasmuch as the Notification has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the...
Somasundaram Vs. Thangaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ228
Srinivasan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No. 775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Section 104, read with Order 43, Rule 1(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »