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.
S.Rm.M.Ct.M. Thiruppani Trust Rep. by Its Trustee, M.Ct. Pethachi Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC695
ORDERAli Mohamed, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Rc.J2.No. 67077 of 1988 on his file and quash the order dated 9.5.1989 made therein (confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in A2/SRA/4/81, dated 19.9.1988.2. The petitioner herein is S.RM. M.CT.M Thiruppani Trust. In the affidavit filed by one of the trustees of the petitioner trust, it is stated that his grandfather, the late Sir. M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar, executed a deed of declaration of trust on 20th October, 1930 and registered the same in Rangoon. Since the original trust deed was lost during World War II the trust was reiterated by a deed of declaration of trust executed by him and his elder brother Sir. M. CT. Muthiah on 12.2.1969. The main objects of the Trust are renovation of Hindu temples and endowing and maintaining educational institutions in Madras and endowing hospital and gr...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. C. B. Muthusamy Chettiar (Decd) and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)91
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :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 from...
State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. M. Anita Selva Zavier and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad168
ORDERK. A. Swami, C. J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS Courses, Director of Medical Education and Director of Government Examinations, against the order dated 17-7-1996 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing W.P. No. 7901 of 1996 and directing the respondents I to 4 in the writ petition, who are the appellants in this appeal to give the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein one seat in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in the 1st year MBBS Course, 1996-97. There is a further direction to respondents 1 to 4 to comply with the order, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that as the application sent by the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) reached the Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS Course on 8-6-1996 whereas the last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 7-6-1996, the application having been received after the last date fi...
O.V. Jayakumar Vs. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC536
A. Raman, J.1. The husband is the appellant. The husband herein as the petitioner filed a application before the Sub Court, Coimbatore in O.P. No. 214 of 1982 for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner/husband's case is as follows:2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 14.9.1980. After the marriage the respondent lived with the petitioner in his house only for three days and on 17.9.1980 she left the matrimonial home without any reason and without the consent of the petitioner. She also at that time took away the jewels. Since the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home, the petitioner sent a registered notice on 18.12.1980 requesting her to come and live with him. It was not complied with by the respondent. The petitioner personally visited the respondent's house and invited her to his house. But the respondent refused to come with the petitioner. The members of the respondent's family also abused the petitioner. On 4.3.1981 and 4.4.1981...
Krishnan Vs. Punidham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ242
Raju, J.1. The above Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 147 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, who succeeded before the learned trial Judge, but lost partly before the first appellate Judge.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 147 of 1977 for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit property originally belonged to one Manicka Mudaliar, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1922, that after his death, his two sons Muthusamy and Deivasigamani inherited the property, that in the year 1963, the plaintiff purchased half Khani of land to the west of the suit property, that the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement on 6.12.1965 with the second defendant and father of defendants 3 and 4 for the purchase of the suit property and that a notarial sale deed was executed on 13.1.1966 in pursuance of th...
P. Thangaraj and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ416
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records connected with the orders of the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, issued in E-1/970/66/77, dated 26.4.1978, the order of the appeal Committee of the Madurai City Corporation in Resolution No. 30, dated 3.6.1982, and the order of confirmation made by the Government in its letter No. 31817/VII/87-21, dated 1.4.1991, and to quash the same, and also to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh panel of Junior Assistants fit for promotion for posts of Assistants for the year 1982 by placing the petitioners above the names of respondents 4 to 20.2. The case of the petitioners, as pleaded by them, is that the petitioners were initially working as Junior Assistants in the Corporation of Madurai; the next promotional post is the post of Assistant; in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant, one should pass departmental account test; they are g...
P. Thangaraj and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ668Mad; (1996)IIMLJ416
ORDER1. The petitioners have sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with orders of the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, issued in E-1/970/66/77 dated April 26, 1978, the order of the appeal Committee of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation in Resolution No. 30 dated June 3, 1982 and the order of confirmation made by the Government in its letter No. 31817/Vll/8721 dated April 1, 1991, and to quash the same, and also to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh panel of Junior Assistants fit for promotion for posts of Assistants for the year 1982 by placing the petitioners above the names of respondents 4 to 20. 2. The case of the petitioners as pleaded by them, is that the petitioner were initially working as Junior Assistants in the Corporation of Madurai; the next promotional post is the post of, Assistant; in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant, one should pass departmental account test; they are gove...
Elumalai Vs. K. Sukumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC555
ORDERKarpagavinayagam, J.1. This is the revision preferred by the petitioner Elumalai against the order passed in C.C.No.126 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram, dismissing his complaint under Section 204(4) of Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. S.S. Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submits that the order passed by the Magistrate on 13.5.1993 dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable in law, for the reasons that on two previous hearings he paid the process fee and he did not pay process fee only for the third hearing. Under such circumstances, the complaint was dismissed without giving reasonable time as provide under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C.3. The counsel for the respondent is absent. I have gone through the records and Order. The diary extract filed in this case would make it clear that the complaint was filed on 2.4.1993 and the same was taken on file and the summons were issued to the respondent-accused on p...
Murugesa Moopanar Vs. Sivagnana Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC348
ORDERSubramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 271 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tiruvaiyaru, are the appellants before this Court.2. Suit filed by plaintiff, which was originally for injunction was converted into a suit for possession by adding an alternative relief.3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows : - The plaint schedule property was acquired by plaintiff which is having an area of 23 cents included in Survey Number 440/13 (13 cents) and Survey Number 440/14 (10 cents). The boundaries are also provided in the Schedule, namely, south of Cauvery River bund, and on all the other three sides, covered by the property belonging to Pushpavalli Animal. A rough plan is also filed along with the plaint to show the location. It is said that the plaint property is a cinema theatre, and as regards the remaining extent, plaintiff is cultivating the same. In Paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is said that close to the plaintiffs property, from the northern side, the...
Dr. R. Balasubramanian Vs. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ24
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is for writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 7.8.1987 and forbear the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioner's salary.2. The petitioner Dr. R. Balasubramanian, Associate Professor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University was selected for Ph.D. course and he was deputed for that purpose. Before joining the course, he was asked to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000. One of the terms in the bond is that in the event of successful completion of the course, if he resigned or relieved himself from service without returning to duties within a period of three years he would pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. The petitioner was undergoing first and second Trimesters course. The course teacher did not follow the prescribed rules. Hence, he wrote a letter on 31.5.1983 and 31.8.1985 to the Dean, Madras Veterinary College as well as the Professor and He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »