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.
K.S. Arumugha Gounder Vs. Pavayammal and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC98
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents have remained unrepresented, though served. None appeared, when called, for the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff in O.S.No. 287 of 1995) urged that the impugned order passed by the Court below on I.A.No. 2117 of 1995 in O.S.No. 287 of 1995 is patently illegal and unsustainable. He submitted that an application under Section 10 C.P.C. was filed by the respondents seeking for stay of the suit having regard to the pendency of the suit in O.S.No. 273 of 1981. The petitioner made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. in his suit O.S.No. 287 of 1995 in the Court below. When that application came up for consideration, I.A.No. 2117 of 1995 was filed by the respondents under Section 10, C.P.C. The trial Court should have stayed the trial of the suit at the most and was not justified in staying all further proceedings including the consideration of the application filed...
Dhanapal Perinbam Roadways Vs. Indirani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC446; 1997ACJ766
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The respondents owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, in M.C.O.P. No. 1045 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondents herein/ claimants filed the said O.P., for the death of one S.R. Rajalinga Raja in a motor accident, which took place on 26.9.1991 at Palayamkottai in which vehicle bearing registration No. TNK 1493 belonging to the first appellant herein, insured with the second appellant herein was involved. Altogether, the claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under various heads. By order dated 27.11.1992 the Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the first appellant herein passed an award for Rs. 4,89,000/-.2. The insurance company and the insured filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Since the quantum alone is being challenged, we are not di...
M.S. Sulochana Vs. S. Rathinasabapathi Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ538
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed by the landlady against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Vellore, in R.C.A.No. 63 of 1990, reversing the order passed by the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Gudiyatham, in R.C.O.P.No. 26 of 1987.2. The petitioner/landlady filed a petition for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner/landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 125, which was originally leased out to the father of the tenant who was doing hardware business. After his death the respondent/tenant is continuing as a tenant doing the same business of hardware. According to the landlady, the demised property is more than a century old and it is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, it requires immediate demolition. It is further stated by the landlady that income ...
Govinda Reddy Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ148
ORDER1. This is revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment in C.A. No. 58 of 1991, on the file of Sessions Court, Chengalpattu M.G.R. District confirming the judgment rendered in SC No. 51 of 1984, on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, convicting him for an offence under S. 376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. The short facts that could be discerned from the materials produced by the prosecution could be summarised as follows :- P.W. 1 Jeganathan is working as a driver in Simson Co. His sister P.W. 2 Susistra a 22 years girl was working in Kalpana Lamp at Madhavaram, as a machine operator. P.W. 1 Jeganathan, P.W. 2 Susitra have been residing along with their mother in the same house. The father of P.Ws. 1 and 2 died in the year 1961. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Jeganathan, as the head of the family has been looking after the mother and sister P.W. 2. 3. The working hours for P.W. 2 are between 8-30 a.m. and 5-00 p.m. on Sundays,...
N. Selvaraj Vs. the Management of Seeranaickenpalayam Weavers' Co-op P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ830Mad
ORDERIn Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour Court, : (1971)ILLJ526SC , the Supreme Court has observed that it is well established that, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226, the High court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Industrial Tribunals. Its jurisdiction is supervisory and therefore, it interferes if the jurisdiction conferred on such tribunals is exercised improperly, or in non-compliance of well established principles or for any such other reason. After having found that the retrenchment is not bona fade, when it considers the relief, the Labour Court is trying to dilate its own finding given earlier and tries to justify the award of compensation in an unreasonable manner. Hence, the order of the Labour Court, relating to award of compensation is quashed and the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. ...
A.E. Muskerudeen Vs. Jamila Beevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC246
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a revision preferred by the petitioner/ husband against the order passed in M.P. No. 988 of 1992 in M.C. No. 438 of 1991, on the file of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Madras, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2), Cr. P.C., to set aside an exparte order of maintenance passed in M.C. No. 438 of 1991.2. This case has got a chequered history. The 1st respondent herein has filed a petition for maintenance on her behalf and on behalf of her son and daughter, the respondents 2 and 3 herein, against her husband, the petitioner herein in M.C. No. 438 of 1991 on 25.10.1991, before the Family Court at Madras. The petitioner/ husband filed a counter before the Family Court, objecting to her claim on 26.2.1992. During the pendency of the enquiry before the Family Court, there were settlement talks, but however, the matter was not compromised. The case was adjourned periodically for enquiry. At the last stage, the petiti...
Veeramuthu Vs. Puttalayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC245
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No. 704 of 1981, on the file of the Court of Principal District, Munsif, Pondicherry, who was unsuccessful before both the Courts below.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for payment of Rs. 2,250 being the mesne profits for three years. The suit came to be filed before the Trial Court on 24.9.1981. The case of the plaintiff was that originally, the schedule mentioned property belonged to one Sadaiyan and the said Sadaiyan died leaving behind his son, Maayan, who left behind him a daughter by name Kuppu and the plaintiff claims to be the only son, and heir of Kuppu. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, it appears that he had been in possession and enjoyment and after the death of his father, the mother Kuppu appears to have leased out the property to Seenan and the said Seenan cla...
R. Srinivasan Vs. M. Thambusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC66; (1997)IMLJ34
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Petitioner in CRP.No. 1024 of 1991 (Thambusami) is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 184 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. Respondent in CRP.No.1024 of 1991 (R.Srinivasan) is the defendant in the said suit and petitioner in CRP.No. 1833 of 1989. The plaintiff-Thambusami, filed the suit against the defendant-Srinivasan for recovery of possession of 0.40 cents and thatched house measuring 22' x 10' standing thereon and bearing Survey No. 129 situated in Yittukkatti Village, Thiruthuraipoondi Sub-Registry and Taluk and bounded on north, cast, south and west by the properties of Thangavel, Ponnusami, Dhanagopal and Muthiah Thcvar. According to the plaintiff, the survey number was wrongly given in the plaint as R.S.No.129 instead of R.S.No.209/2A. However, there was no dispute regarding the identity of the property and four boundaries. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land belongs to Sri Viswanathaswami temple and he is the tenant of ...
Rajeswari Vs. District Magistrate, District Collector of Salem and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ439
Janarthanam, J.1. One Rajeswari (petitioner) is the wife of the detenu Palanisamy. The detenu, it is said is a Boot legger'. Apart from the ground case, the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 20-11-1995, he had come to adverse notice in four other cases. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem (1st Respondent) claimed upon the detenu, the impugned order of detention under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in his proceedings C.M.P. No. 35/B.L.A./95(C2) dated 2-11-1995 with a view to preventing him from indulging in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 3. Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. K. Selvarangan, and L. Mahendran appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points for consideration :- (1) Representation dated 23-12-1995 had not at all been considered and disposed of without any unreasonable delay and such a factor greatly affected the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR701(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order of this court, dated March 28, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to reassess the capital gains as long-term capital gains ?'2. There was a partnership firm consisting of five partners, which purchased a property on July 4, 1962, and on June 14, 1973, the partners withdrew the property from the firm and held it as co-owners, and thereafter, on February 25, 1974, the five partners sold the property. The Income-tax Officer assessed the capital gains arising from the property as short-term capital gains on the basis that it was sold in the year in which it was acquired by the partners from the firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »