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.
Andi Janaki Vs. S. Chelliah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ522
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Peppin Fernando and Mr. S. Krishnaswamy for the respective parties.2. According to the appellant, the suit property belongs to her and that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and the respondent claimed that he is a cultivating tenant of the suit property. According to the appellant, the respondent had not produced any document to substantiate his claim. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed the finding of the lower court and allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the lower court. Aggrieved by the order of remand the appellant has filed the civil miscellaneous appeal in this Court.3. Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court is wrong in its judgment that there is no possibility of getting the documents for the lease or payment of patta. When the respondent/plaintiff comes forward with a bare injunction, it is his duty to prove the origin of his poss...
Karuppayee and Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1627
Rengasamy, J. 1. These two suo motu revisions relating to the detention of the Juveniles have come before us by way of reference by a learned single Judge as the connected appeals filed by the Juvenile accused after conviction, are pending before the Division Bench. These suo motu revisions are on the letters of the Director of Social Defence Madras who has raised certain doubts as to the judgments of two Sessions Courts directing juveniles to undergo imprisonment by transferring then to the jail after the period of detention in the approved schools up to their respective age namely, 20 years in the case of girl and 18 years for the boy. So as this question was raised by the Director of Social Defence in her letters, the matters were taken up for suo motu revisions for consideration of the legal sanction of the sentences of imprisonment on the juveniles. 2. Of these the two juveniles, Karuppayee was found guilty of the offence under S. 302 read with 34 by the learned III Additional Ses...
N. Uthirapathy, President, Thanjavur Dist. Civil Supplies Corpn. Loadm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ13Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for mandamus to direct the respondents to give employment to the 26 loadmen, who have been working under the respondents from 1973 who are the members of the petitioner-union in the godown to be opened in Balakrishna Nagar at Mannargudi. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows : The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited had rented godown at Pamani in Mannargudi taluk from 1973. The workmen were engaged as loadmen in the said godown from 1973. The Civil Supplies Corporation constructed its godown at Balakrishna Nagar, Mannargudi and shifted its activities from Pamani to Balakrishna Nagar. In a meeting held on September 5, 1987 convened by the Deputy Manager, at Mannargudi Taluk Office, all representatives of C.I.T. Union, Anna D.M.K. Union and Dr. Ambedkar Loadmen union have participated. The proposal of the Deputy Manager in chair meeting was not acceptable to the petitioner-union. In the new godown workmen from other unions have been accommo...
The Management of Kanchipuram Central Co-operative Bank Vs. N. Doraisw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1058Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order of the second respondent dated November 24, 1986 in T.S.E. Case No. 6 of 1981.2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent herein was working as a Branch Manager of the Poonamalle Branch of the petitioner's bank. He has committed serious irregularities and misappropriated the funds of the petitioner bank. Hence he was suspended from service on December 14, 1979. Charges were framed against him on March 10, 1980. He has admitted various lapses 'and irregularities, but contended that the irregularities and misappropriation were by one G. Balasubramaniam, who was working as cashier under him. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted on September 1, 1980 finding the first respondent guilty of all major charges except two minor charges 2(c) and 4 of the charge memo. On November 15, 1980 second show-cause notice was issued. After getting his explanation on December...
Sundaram Vs. Varadaiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC515; (1996)IMLJ335
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. There is an unusual delay in representing the papers. Instead of troubling the respondent, on the question of condonation of delay in representing the papers, we wanted to satisfy ourselves about the merits of the case, as the appeal has been filed in time. There is a delay of 386 days in representing the papers. Hence the delay is condoned. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant on the merits of the appeal.2. The one and the only contention urged before us is that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as the Act, therefore, he filed an application under Section 15 of the Act, that on the date of filing of the application the decree holder had not drawn the amount and the decree had no been fully executed. On the contrary, it was the contention of the decree holder that the application was filed only on 21.4.1973; that before that date the decree was executed; tha...
A. Natarajan Vs. the Commissioner, Land Administration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ425
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.7.1996 dismissing W.P. No. 9983 of 1996. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents, at the stage of admission. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader appears for the respondents. The appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/ appellant has sought for quashing the order dated 4.7.1996 passed by the first respondent, refusing to grant an order staying the operation of the order passed by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District in Roc.B1/65678/92, dated 30.5.1996.3. There was a proceeding initiated against the petitioner and another person, by name A. Perumal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for evicting them from S.Nos. 60 and 65 of Arni Taluk and Town, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar ...
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. J. Jayalalitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2481; (1994)IMLJ314
ORDER1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition, and the order of the Lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Dr. Subramanian Swamy the petitioner herein and of Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, advocate for the respondent and of Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram the Public Prosecutor, the Court made the following order :- An interesting question of law, however, almost settled by the judicial pronouncements by now, is being raised in this case, while seeking admission of this revision filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in Unnumbered C.C. of 1996 in S.R. No. 4604 of 1996 dated 15-7-1996. 2. Mr. Subramanian Swamy, President of Janatha party, filed a private complaint before the court below against Selvi Jayalalitha for the alleged commission of offences under sections 11, 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stating that the latter while she was the Chief Minister, along with others c...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.N. Shanmugasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR842(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 28(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri bunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(l)(v) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in respect of the initial gift of Rs. 95,000 being the value of the property gifted to Shanmugasundaram Educational Trust ?' 2. On July 27, 1972, the assessee created a trust deed and registered the same on the same date. In the trust deed, it is stated that the house property at No. 33, Sullivan Garden Road, Madras, valued at Rs. 95,000 was given as a gift to the trust called Shanmugasundaram Educational Trust. The assessee-trust claimed exemption under section 5(T)(v) of the Act. According to the Department when the gift was made, the trust was not in existence, since the creation...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. C.B. Muthusamy Chettiar (Decd) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR327(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. As per the direction of this Court in Tax Case Nos. 168 to 171 of 1980, dt. 21st July, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question in both the IT assessment for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 as well as the WT assessment for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 and under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the declaration of the assessee to impress a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the character of HUF was effective from 30th September, 1969, i.e., the date of declaration and not from 30th March, 1970, when the entries were passed in the books and accordingly in directing to exclude a sum of Rs. 48,000 assessed under s. 64(2) of the IT Act for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and Rs. 4,00,000 assessed under s. 4(1A) of the WT Act, 1957, for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual deriving income ...
R. Muthusami Vs. Abdul Razack, Executive Trustee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC321; (1997)IMLJ56
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 873 of 1978, on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif's Court. Tiruchirapalli. is the appellant.2. The. suit filed by the plaintiff is one for recovery of the building from the defendant. The title over the property is admitted. The claim of the appellant is that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.3. He also filed an application to permit him to purchase the property, as I.A. No. 1826 of 1989 in the same suit. The interim application as well as the suit was taken up together and evidence was let in the application.4. Trial Court, after elaborately taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant is not entitled to the City Tenants Protection Act. It further found that the building belonged to the plaintiff. Since nothing remained to be decided in the suit, dismissing the interim application, a decree was granted in favour of the defendant.5. Against the judgment, plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »