Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
K. Arumugam and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ670
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. In all these writ petitions, in substance, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate I Class on the basis of inclusion of their names in the reserve list drawn and notified by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 30.7.1995, on regular basis.2. The petitioners state, they are practising advocates at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, T.N.P.S.C.) issued a notification inviting the applications from the members of the Bar for direct recruitment and appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate First Class, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The petitioners possess the qualifications prescribed for the aforesaid post, and they made applications to the T.N.P.S.C. in the prescribed forms paying necessary fees as required. They were called for an ora...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR69(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deferred interest payment relating to loan raised for purchase of machinery installed in 'textiles processing unit' was revenue in nature and does not form part of the actual cost of plant and machinery ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacture and processing of textiles. The assessment year involved is 1979-80 and the relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1978. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 declaring a total income of Rs. 19,08,600. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range-II, Coimbatore, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 34,96,070. The assessee during the course of the relevant pr...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Abdul Hameed and Co. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC357
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This letters patent appeal was filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.1991 made in A.S.No. 402 of 1981 reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.3.1980 made in O.S.No. 5467of 1978 on the file of the III Asst. Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras. The respondent is the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited represented by its Managing Director. The appellant filed the suit O.S.5467 of 1978 for rendition of accounts for said sums as found due from the first defendant/first respondent herein to the plaintiff/appellant herein and for interest as determined by the court and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from taking any action under the Revenue Recovery Act and from interfering with the plaintiff/appellant's right to carry on his own private business and costs.2. The plaint averments in short are: The plaintiff/appellant is running a rice mill in Puduvayal, Ramanathapuram District and in March, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Unit Trust of India Vs. G.V. Films Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC532
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The applicant has filed this application to recall C.S. No. 253 of 1993 in T.A. No. 192 of 1997 which has been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent has filed the suit or recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,75,155/- together with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiffs case is that the dividend has been paid to the 1st defendant wrongly when the dividend is due to the 2nd defendant in the suit/2nd respondent herein.2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Ramachandran on behalf of the applicant contended that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the Suit because the Suit is one for recovery of the amount, the dividend which was paid to the applicant is sought to be recovered in order to pay to the 2nd respondent herein, who is entitled for the same. Hence the dispute is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitled is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Gomathi Ammal and ors. Vs. Pitchammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ678
S.S. Subramani, J.1. 1st defendant in O.S. No. 390 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, is the appellant. After filing the appeal, she died and appellants 2 to 6 are brought on record as additional appellants.2. Plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of their right over the plaint scheduled properties and for consequent reliefs including mesne profits.3. The plaint properties originally belonged to one Krishnaswami Iyer, who died in the year 1932. He had a son by name Venkataraman, who died in the year 1958. Krishnaswami Iyer had a daughter and her daughter by name Gomathi Ammal, is the 1st defendant herein. It is seen that Krishnaswami Iyer executed a Will on 15.1.1932. As per the provisions of the Will, he did not provide anything for his son, but bequeathed his properties to Ramanathan, son of Venkataraman, for his life and the vested reminder to the male issues of Ramanathan. But Ramanathan died issueless. The plaintiffs herein are the daughters of Ven...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Nadar (Died) and ors. Vs. Subbulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ8
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 213 of 1976, on the file of District Munsif, Kovilpatti, is the appellant. After the appeal was filed, the appellant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants 2 and 3.2. The suit filed by the sole respondent herein was one for recovery of possession, after terminating the lease arrangement. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted that the plaintiff is the landlady and that he is the tenant. As per Ex. A-1, dated 13.5.1976, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy with the tenancy month and sought recovery of possession. According to the tenant, he received the notice only on 17.5.1976, as evidenced by Ex. A-2 acknowledgment. It is further contended by the defendant/tenant that if Ex. A-2 is considered as the date of receipt of notice, 15 days' time is not given, as provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and as such, the notice is invalid. On the basis of Ex. A-1 notice, the defendant conte...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchana Vs. S. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ669
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The defendant who suffered the decree before the lower court, in O.S. No. 101 of 1990, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, has filed the above appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties and for directing the defendant to handover possession of the suit properties, on or before 5.12.1994, for mesne profits, and for costs. According to the plaintiff the suit properties originally belonged to one Parijatham Ammal, the widow of the plaintiff's brother Srinivasaga Naidu. He died in the year 1965. After his death the major portion of the suit properties had been inherited by the said Parijatham Ammal. Other properties were acquired by the said Parijatham Ammal out of the income from her husband's estate. The said Parijatham Ammal died intestate on 18.8.1987 leaving no issues. The plaintiff is her only heir under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act as the plaintiff is her husband'...
Tag this Judgment!Altaf Ahmed Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1997
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas837(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. This petition is filed under section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the suspension of the conviction and fine imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the order of conviction passed by the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C. No. 143 of 1996.2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted along with some others for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The learned VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate has found the petitioner herein guilty of the offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,02,000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further, he also has directed that out of the fine of Rs. 25,02,000, Rs. 25,00,000 would be paid to the complainant towards the compensation. This order of conviction was affirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ch...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jayanthi Vs. S. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC697
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This Revision arises from a divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent herein as H.M.O.P. 478 of 1994, on the file of Subordinate judge, Krishnagiri. When the wife received notice of the divorce petition, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim alimony and litigation expenses. According to her, she has no means to support herself and she is completely depending on others for her maintenance. It is further averred that her husband is getting more than Rs. 5,500/-as monthly income. So, according to status, she requires to least Rs. 1,500/- p.m. as maintenance. She also claimed Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.2. Respondent herein filed a detailed counter. According to him, the wife has got other means to support herself and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. He also said that the monthly income alleged in the petition is not correct, though he admitted that he is an employee as alleged by the wife. He said...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramanarayanan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC443
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J1. Petitioner is a practising Advocate. He was appointed by the State Government as a Notary under the Notaries Act 1952 on 25.10.1989. At the expiry of the period of three years from that date, his certificate of practice was renewed by a notification issued by the State Government dated 27.1.1993. Petitioner applied for further renewal before the expiry of three years from 27.1.1993. That application dated 13.12.1995 was filed 51 days after 25.10.1995. The rejection of that application and consequent removal of the petitioner from the list of Notaries by the Government's notification dated 27.8.1996 has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.2. The reason for removal as set out in the Notification is that petitioner had failed to apply for renewal, along with the Fee therefore before the expiry of three years from 25.10.1995 and the explanation given by the petitioner for not applying before 25.10.1995 was not satisfactory.3. Learned Senior counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »