Chennai Court August 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.
B. KutpuddIn Vs. Zuleika Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ15
Raju, J.1. The 7th defendant in O.S. No. 82 of 1977, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,332 being the principal and interest due as damages for the amount paid by the plaintiff to safeguard her title in respect of the B schedule property and in default of such payment, for a direction for the sale of the A schedule property for the payment of the said amount.2. The case of the plaintiff before the courts below was that one Muthukaruppan Chettiar and his brother Saminathan Chettiar sold a building to the plaintiff described in the B schedule, on 25.6.1960, the original of which is marked as Ex. B-4 and a registration copy of the same is marked as Ex. A-1, for -valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000 claiming themselves to be the full and exclusive owners of the building. The 1st defendant is said to be the son of Muthukaruppan Chettiar, one of the vendor...
N. Sasikala Vs. Enforcement Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas355(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioner herein is seeking for her release on bail, after dismissal of her petition for a similar prayer by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. 2. The material facts, which gave rise to the indictment, are these : The petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody for the alleged non-bailable offence under sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) read with section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). She was summoned to appear before the Enforcement Department on June 20, 1996, and later after questioning, arrested and produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. The case of the respondent is that she was a director and a chairperson of the company called J.J.T.V. Private Limited and she has participated and signed in a meeting, which authorised the managing director of J.J.T.V. Private Limited, namely, Mr. V. Bhaskaran, to negotiate and enter into a contract with any foreign s...
N. Sasikala Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2127
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is seeking for her release on bail, after dismissal of her petition for a similar prayer by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras.2. The material facts, which gave rise to indictment, are these :-The petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody for the alleged non-bailable offence under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in short. She was summoned to appear before the Enforcement Department on 20-6-1996 and later after questioning arrested and produced before the Magistrate and remanded to Judicial Custody. The case of the respondent is that she was a Director and Chair Person of the Company called J.J.T.V. Private Limited and she has participated and signed in a meeting, which authorised the Managing Director of J.J.T.V. Private Limited, namely, Mr. V. Bhaskaran to negotiate and enter into a contract with any Foreign supplier with Transpound...
V.N. Sudhagaran Vs. Enforcement Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2630
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that he is being implicated under sections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter called as 'FERA' in short. 2. It is stated in the petition that he is a Director in a Company M/s. Super Duper T.V. Private Limited. This Company is doing business in making the features and short films for being telecast in the satellite channel. The features and films are done in Madras and given to satellite channel in Madras. The petitioner has been summoned under Section 40 of the FERA in an on going investigation and as a follow-up action. It was considered necessary by the respondent and summons were issued on 9-7-1996 for appearance on 15-7-1996, for which he sought three weeks adjournment. The respondent has issued fresh summons on 15-7-1996 for his appearance on 18-7-1996. The petitioner again took adjournment by his letter dated 17-7-1996. Further summons was issued for his appearance...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ170Mad
Janarthanam, J.1. Certain events and incidents, which formed the backdrop and setting of the present actions - Writ Appeal No. 332 of 1994 and Writ Petitions Nos. 3124, 3125 and 3917 of 1993 better it is, we feel, to relate to have a proper understanding and fine grasp, with ease and grace - of the legal implications or positions to be derived or to flow from the factual matrix, giving rise to certain issues - so moot and complicated in nature - with which, we are now called upon to decide, by giving our anxious consideration. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited (for short,'the employer') has one of its units located at Ranipet in the State of Tamil Nadu, where sanitary ware, superphospate and insecticides are manufactured. Some of its retired employees filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947 - for, short, 'the I.D. Act'), before the Labour Court, Madras, claiming pension by alleging that pay ability of pension was a condition of servi...
A.N. Dyaneswaran Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC237
ORDERShivappa, J. 1. The petitioner being unsuccessful to get an order of bail by the Courts below has approached this Court for similar relief.2. According to the respondent, the petitioner herein has contravened the provisions of Section 8(1) of the FERA, 1973 for having otherwise acquired U.S.S 5061. Singapore $ 527 and Malaysian $ 210. Further, he has made payments totalling to Rs. 1,00,59,195 during 1994-95 to Shri C. Sampath Kumar of Madras as per the instructions of Shri. Nadadur Varadhan of Santa Monica, USA., a person residing outside India, in contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of the FERA, 1973. It is on this basis, the investigation is proceeded by the Enforcement Directorate and it is still pending.3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that arrest and remand of the petitioner to judicial custody is not valid in law and there is no proper remand and the petitioner is ailing and his mother is also in coma, that Sampath Kumar, co-accused was already rele...
Kandaswamy Pathar Vs. Meenakshi Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ430
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 28 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Thanjavur, dated 22.7.1991 confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thanjavur, dated 20.9.1990.2. Heard both sides. The petitioner is the tenant. He was inducted on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 by the husband of the first respondent. According to the tenant, even during the life time of the husband of the respondent, the monthly rent was collected from the tenant in lumpsum only and the rent was collected by the agent after making the entry in the katchat book maintained by the tenant, which is also marked as Ex.B-1 in the proceedings before the lower court. It is also the case of the petitioner that the practice of collecting lumpsum rent over a period was also followed by the respondent- landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that, there is no wilful default on his part in th...
Arumugham Vs. T.L. Radhakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ639
Jagadeesan, J. 1. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the lands of the first respondent herein. Before over the sale transaction is completed, the lands were acquired by the Government. The petitioner on coming to know of the acquisition proceeding, filed claim petition before the second respondent. The second respondent, after passing the award, referred the matter to Sub-Court, Chengleput, under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. In the said L.A.O.P. proceedings the petitioner was set ex pane on 11.8.1994 and on the same date an ex parte order was passed by the lower court, stating that the first respondent in these revisions is entitled to the entire compensation. In all the L.A.O.Ps. the petitioner filed applications for setting aside the ex pane decree and since there was delay in filing the applications, he also filed applications for condoning the delay of 170 days in filing the petitions for setting aside the ex p...
Muralidhar Lohia (Died) and anr. Vs. North Madras Merchants Associatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ435
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.7.1990 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. No. 9055 of 1987 in which the petitioner/ appellant has sought for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 1824, dated 29.7.1987, passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), exempting the premises bearing Door No. 444. Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras 600021 in the occupation of the petitioner/ appellant from all the provisions of the Act.2. Learned single Judge has upheld the order of the State Government on the grounds that the exercise of power by the State Government is reasonable, that it does not suffer from any arbitrariness that the landlord has no remedy under the Act, and, therefore, the exemption, granted does not call for interference.3. Before us, it was strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it cannot be said that the first re...
Mubarak Nisha Vs. R.M. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas172(Mad)
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is a revision preferred by the petitioner, Mubarak Nisha, a pardanishan lady, accused in C.C. No. 219 of 1994 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, which is directed against the order in Crl. M.P. No. 883 of 1995 dismissing the petition filed by her for discharging her and dropping the proceedings under section 227, read with section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The facts in brief are as follows : The complainant, the respondent, R.M. Subramanian, filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stating that on January 14, 1994, the accused/petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant/respondent and issued three post dated cheques. In respect of one such cheque, the complainant already filed a complaint before the lower court in C.C. No. 62 of 1994. In respect of other two cheques, the complaint in question was filed and the same was taken on file in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »