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.
V.P. Zackria Vs. Mahavir Investments
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC361
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This revision was sought to be admitted on the only ground that the issuance of summons to the petitioner/accused is not the resultant factor of the application of mind before the court below while entertaining the complaint for allegedly taking cognizance of any offence under the Indian Penology. Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made an honest attempt to convince me that since the entertaining of the very complaint by the learned Magistrate is the resultant factor of the non-application of mind, and as such no offence can be taken cognizance of, ordering the issuance of summons resulted in the failure of justice to the parties and that therefore, even on the receipt of the summons from the trial court, the revisional jurisdiction sought for before this court to set aside the said summons can be entertained.2. In the light of the settled position of law by the High Court as well as the Apex court under Sections 201 to 204 of th...
Poppi Reddy and anr. Vs. Ellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ636
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether under Ex.A-1 the legatee gets absolute estate or a life estate over the property bequeathed to her. One Mandaiyan @ Siddhi Reddy executed Ex.A-1 on 14.5.1948 bequeathing his properties, one of them being the suit property. The suit property is given to his daughter Poppammal. At that time, she was a minor and her guardians were directed to manage the property during her minority. After the marriage with one Ellamma Reddy, herself and her husband executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 7.4.1956. The plaintiffs are the children of the said Poppammal. They have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the property and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in favour of any other person.2. The trial court held that the estate given to Poppammal was only a limited estate and the alienation by her will not bind the plaintiffs...
R.S. Munirajan Vs. Jaya theatre and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC74
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above three revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.105 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. The salient features of the controversy involved for consideration in the suit and the course of conduct adopted at every stage by the plaintiff in the suit to delay the expeditious disposed of the suit have been already adverted to by me in my earlier order dated 17.4.1996 in CRP.Nos. 905 and 906 of 1996 and hence, I consider it unnecessary to refer to them once again and I make it clear that the proceedings now initiated by the plaintiff being a continuation of the earlier proceedings culminating in my earlier order, this order can be treated as an order also made in the same manner as dealing with a continuing process with reference to the conduct of the suit, which even during the last time when the matter was brought before this Court was at the stage of arguments before the trial Court.2. It is necessary to appreciate...
The Official Receiver Vs. R. Annamalai and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC536; (1996)IMLJ47
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Petitioners in the CRP No. 2181 of 1995 are the landlords. They have filed an application seeking eviction of the tenant viz., the second respondent in the civil revision petition on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of denial of title of the landlord by the tenant. The Official Receiver, North Arcot Ambedkar District and Timvannamalai Sambuvarayar District at Vellore filed an application for impleading him as a party to the proceedings. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller allowed the same. Against the said order in IA No. 10 of 1995 in RCOP No. 18 of 1994 the civil revision petition has been filed by the landlords on the ground that for deciding the question whether the denial of title of the landlords by the tenant in the rent control Proceedings the presence of the Official Receiver who was a third party is not necessary. This Court has passed the order allowing the civil revision petition and directing the Rent Controller ...
V. Balraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad187; 1997(1)CTC726
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed by one Balraj petitioner herein praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 1695 Home (Cinema-I) Department dated 14-10-1992 rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent in C.A. No. 162 of 1989 daied 5-8-1991 upholding the order of the Collector of Tiruchirapalli in RC.D1/ 9712B/88 dated 26-5-1989 rejecting the petitioner's request for the grant of a No objection certificate to locate a permanent theatre in S.F. No. 109/6 of Agaramsigoor Village in Perarnbalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli Disirict and to quash the said order of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 1695 Home (Cincma-I) Department dated 14-10-1992.2. In support of the writ petition one S. Renganathan the Manager of Sri A. Balraj has sworn to an affidavit in which he has stated that the petitioner was granted No Objection Certificate for locating a Permanent Cinema in S.F. No. 109/8 of...
Adham Rowther Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ529
ORDER1. By consent of parties, both the Criminal Revision and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are taken up together for final disposal. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate V. Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P. 3501 of 1994 dated 30-12-1994 which was one filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to recall P.W. 1 and which has been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate V. Tirunelveli. The impugned order is extracted as hereunder : 'This petition coming on for final hearing before me under Section 311 of recall : Heard as the witness not been cross-examined and the petition is allowed. Issue process on payment of Rs. ..................' The prosecution proceeded with the registration of the complaint in Crime No. 307 of 1992 and a final report has been forwarded to the Court and taken to the file after investigation in C.C. No. 118 of 1993 for the alleged offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code an...
Kennady Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1465
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties, the revision as well as the miscellaneous petition were heard and disposed of by delivering this common order on merits. 2. The challenge in this revision is against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 585/96 dated 15-3-1996, which was the very result of a memo filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II before the trial Court dated 15-3-1996 as stated hereunder : 'In the above case P.W. 1 was examined on 1-3-1996 and today P.W. 2 is examined. Both the witnesses have elicited in the evidence box about the overt act of one Kennady, whose name was not included and added as one of the accused in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that your honour may be pleased to pass order for issue of summons to the accused in the following address and thus render justice.' The above memo seems to have been filed on 15-3-1996. Consequently, on the same day, the followi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Prabha Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR81(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court on March 7, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,54,705 being the value of types in molten stage in the vat which was not taken into account while valuing the stock ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the change in the method of accounting is bona fide, is based on valid and relevant materials and is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of printing and publishing newspapers. In arriving at the value of the closing stock of metal and types, the assessee used to estimate the value of such metal and types on an ad hoc basis. Since the assessee used a special type of alloy for making types for prin...
T.C.K. Higher Secondary School Vs. the District Educational Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ532Mad; (1996)IIMLJ333
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Headmaster of the T.C. Higher Secondary School, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in A.T.M. 5529/B4/87 dated July 9, 1987 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of G. Salanth as post Graduate Assistant from the date of appointment i.e. December 1, 1986 with salary and all benefits and privileges attendant thereto in so for as the petitioner's school is concerned.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner institution is minority institution established and being administered for Malayalam speaking Nair community children. It has also been declared as a linguistic minority educational institution coming under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India in O.S. No. 158 of 1982 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Madras. Miss. G. Salanth, a post graduate teacher was appointed as Post-Graduate Assistant in Economics ...
Sree Ramachandran Vs. Krishnaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC130
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Judge/Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, dated 12.3.1991 in M.A. No. 47 of 1990 confirming the order of the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Pondicherry, dated 20.11.1990 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1990. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision,2. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and his requirement of the premises for personal occupation under Section 10(2)(l) and Section 10(3)(a)(l) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. As far as the requirement for personal occupation is concerned, the claim was rejected by the Rent Controller and there was no appeal by the landlord. As far as the claim made on the basis of wilful default is concerned, the landlord contended that the tenant failed to pay t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »