Chennai Court September 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.
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. V.S. Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC91
Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the Counsels, the appeal itself is taken up or final disposal. The Pallavan Transport Corporation is the appellant herein, the appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Madras in M.C.O.P. 928/85. The respondents herein have filed the said claim petition, claiming the compensation of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of their son aged about 15 years. Their case is that on 25.12.1984 at 8.35 P.M. when the deceased was riding on his cycle in the Purasawalkam High Road near Abirami Theatre, the bus bearing Registration No. T.M.N. 8998 belonging to the appellant Corporation hit the deceased. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. In the impact the deceased died on the spot. The bus came on extreme right and caused the accident. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony, Rs....
Jesudasons Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Ramna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT340(Mad)
ORDER1. Although W.M.P. No.6404 of 1995 is listed for orders, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, showing regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on record. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the Ship [M. T. STEREGUSHDITY (sic)] to the petitioner, since no show cause notice has been issued within a period of six months in accordance with the Legislative command contained in Section 110 of the Customs Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents having not issued any notice within a period of six months to the petitioner, as contemplated and required under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the petitioner is entitled for the relief. He drew my attention to the averment made in Para 4 of the affidavit filed in supp...
P.N. Janaki and ors. Vs. Kalli Bhaskaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ146
D. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mahe, who filed I.A. No. 272 of 1989 for passing of final decree for partition, against the order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S. No. 154 of 1986 remanding the proceedings to the trial court with a direction to the Commissioner earlier appointed to re-measure the suit property with the help of a qualified surveyor and divide the same as per the Commissioner's report after issue of notice to both parties.2. A preliminary decree came to be passed in the matter almost by way of consent and the defendant agreed to have the property divided into five equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and the remaining four shares to defendants 1 to 4. The application for passing of final decree came to be made in I.A. No. 272 of 1985. A Commissioner was said to have been appointed and he has filed his report. The Appellant...
K. Govindaraja Mudaliar Vs. Rajasundaresa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ121
D. Raju, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 788 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, has filed the above appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and remanding the matter with a further direction to the learned trial Judge to forward the papers pertaining to the suit to the concerned and proper court having jurisdiction to try the same in accordance with law.2. The suit O.S. No. 788 of 1983 was filed for a declaration that he is the special custodian of the suit (rust properties and for ensuring his right to be in possession and the physical possession of the properties. The plaintiff himself has given the valuation of the properties as Rs. 40,0Q0 in the plaint, but yet, has chosen to present the/suit before the District Munsif s Court, in view of the fact that it relates to merely a claim pertaining to a trust created over the properties. The defendan...
Krishnammal and anr. Vs. Arulmighu Madanagopalaswamy Temple Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ291
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 54 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. The respondent herein filed the said suit originally on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. For administrative reasons, by order dated 27.1 1992 the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court. Ariyalur and the first hearing was posted on 16.3.1992, on which date the counsel for the plaintiff filed vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff. Notice was ordered to the defendants by 30.3.1992. The matter was adjourned to 30.4.1992 by extending the time for parties appearance. On 30.4.1992 the matter was adjourned to 20.7.1992 for the appearance of the defendants. However, on 24.6.1992, on an application filed by the plaintiff, the hearing of the suit was advanced to 26.6.1992. On that date, the ex pane decree was passed.2. The petitioners herein fil...
P.C. Bhansali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR259(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. These two tax case revisions relate to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The assessee, P. C. Bhansali, is the karta and the manager of the Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself, his wife, Kusumben P. Bhansali, and his sons, (1) Prashant P. Bhansali, and (2) Parag P. Bhansali, and his daughter, Manisha P. Bhansali. The joint family properties consist of interests in the following partnership firms in which the karta is a partner, holding a share therein as set out below : 1. Warwick Estates Syndicate, Kotagiri 8/1282. Kairbetta Estates Syndicate, Kotagiri 5/643. Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea and Plantations, Kotagiri 6/64.2. The manager of the Hindu undivided family, viz., the father, and his major and minor sons, who are other coparceners, decided to effect a partial partition, dated April 1, 1977, of the interests of the joint family in two of the partnership firms, viz., Warwick Estates Syndicate and Kairbetta Estates Syndicate, as a first step t...
M. Kolandai Gounder Vs. the Divisional Engineer, T.N.E.B. Thuraiyur, o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ222Mad
ORDER1. The writ petition is for quashing the charge memo dated November 11, 1987.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Commercial Assistant. He was the senior most and he had unblemished record during his service. While so, some complaints against the Assistant Divisional Engineer for irregular sanctioning of two service connections were received. When the irregularity was pointed out by the higher officers, the Assistant Divisional Engineer got a complaint from one of the parties as if estimate was prepared by the petitioner. The petitioner had nothing to do with the preparation of the estimates. It is by the Assistant Divisional Engineer. With a view to get over the irregularities committed by him, the Assistant Divisional Engineer filed a charge against the petitioner as if he received Rs. 500 for preparing the irregular estimate. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted the enquiry. One Junior Engineer was examined. According to the said witness, the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›