Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
Parvathi Ammal Vs. Solai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ46
D. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.3.1994 in A.S. No. 454 of 1982 whereunder the learned Judge has chosen to allow the appeal in part which has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 138 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in respect of other portion.2. The appellant in the appeal, who is the daughter of one Kesava Padayachi and Solaiammal, the 1st defendant herein, is also the sister of the 2nd defendant. She filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The suit A schedule property comprised four parts consisting of various items of immovable properties and suit B schedule consisting of movables as described therein.3. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments in the plaint is that the suit properties belonged to her father Kesava Padayachi who died o...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal M. Bhayani Vs. Shanti Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ681
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The tenant has filed this revision against the order dated 24.10.1996 in R.C.A. No. 851 of 1996 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras, confirming the order of the VI Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras in H.R.C. No. 2977 of 1975, dated 30.11.1978.2. The respondent filed H.R.C. No. 2977 of 1975 for eviction of the petitioner from the building bearing door No. 10, Kasi Chetty Street, G.T., Madras, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1.10.1971 to 31.7.1972 and from 1.6.1974 to 30.4.1975.3. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence in the case passed an order of eviction on 30.11.1978. M/s. Bhupendra Plastic Industries represented by Shantilal M.Bhayani, filed H.R.C. No. 214 of 1976 for deposit of rent under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging the respondent herein refused to receive the rents sent by money order and cheques. This H.R.C. No. 214 of 1976 was als...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dhanaveni and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ728; AIR1997Mad257; (1997)IIMLJ325
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Abdul Hadi, J., dated 29-6-1994 made in W.P. No. 11029 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition for mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the appellants (writ petitioners) for the death of one G. Subramani.2. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus:'1. The fact that the occurrence took place long back, three years ago and 2. that the fact that the 1st written complaint was made to the 3rd respondent only on 15-10-1992 and 3. that the fact that the second written complaint was made to the 2nd respondent only on 7-4-1994, I see no reason to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could have very well moved the Civil Court long back and claimed compensation. The petitioners, having not done so, after such a long time, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of th...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gajayalakshmi Thayumanavar and Another Vs. Secretary, Public Works ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ755; AIR1997Mad263
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 7-7-1994 passed by A. Abdul Hadi, J., in W. P. No. 1176 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of one T. Suryaprakash, who is the son of the appellants and who lost his life due to electrocution.2. The order of the learned Judge reads thus:'The petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the respondents. That is the mandamus sought for in this writ petition. The said relief is prayed for on the ground that on 15-11-1993, the petitioners' son died due to electrocution and hence, on the ground of negligence on the part of the respondents, the abovesaid claim is made. The appropriate remedy in such cases is only a regular suit. The writ jurisdiction is only for the enforcement of a right and not for establishment of right. The writ petitioners have to prove negligence...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gajayalakshmi Thayumanavar and Another Vs. Secretary, Public Works ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)IIMLJ301
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 7-7-1994 passed by A. Abdul Hadi, J., in W.P. No. 11576 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of one T. Suryaprakash, who is the son of the appellants and who lost his life due to electrocution. 2. The order of the learned Judge reads thus : 'The petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the respondents. That is the mandamus sought for in this writ petition. The said relief is prayed for on the ground that on 15-11-1993, the petitioners' son died due to electrocution and hence, on the ground of negligence on the part of the respondents, the abovesaid claim is made. The appropriate remedy in such cases is only a regular suit. The writ jurisdiction is only for the enforcement of a right and not for establishment of right. The writ petitioners have to prove negligence...
Tag this Judgment!Ushman and Another Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2457
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11-10-1991 in Crl. M.P. No. 4788 of 1990 in S.C. No. 127 of 1990 on the file of XVth Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, to discharge them under S. 227, Cr.P.C. 2. In 1989, the Inspector of Police, Periamet, filed a charge sheet before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, for the offences u/Ss. 436 and 436 read with 34, I.P.C., respectively, alleging that due to their deliberate negligence in not putting off the main switch in their shops at Moore market buildings on 29-5-1985 around 00.15 hours-midnight, the fire broke out from the above two shops due to the melting of the metal wires, insulation materials etc. kept at the above shops, which got fused and due to which the above two shops, the adjoining shops and the parts of Moore market buildings got completely damaged, causing loss of property estimated at about six cr...
Tag this Judgment!ComorIn Match Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR530(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 46 of 1978, dt. 14th June, 1982, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that despite the Central Act 28 of 1969 and Madras Act 3 of 1969 there was a remission or cessation of liability under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in manufacturing safety matches. The assessment year involved in this tax case is 1972-73 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st March, 1972. In respect of sales effected by the assessee during the accounting year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1957-58 to 1965-66 to the accounts, the assessee paid Rs. 1,37,041 by way of central sales-tax. The ITO gave deduction for this amount in the assessments for ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Vs. A. Arumairaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC522
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J. 1 .Though the respondent had been served as early as 6.2.97, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The revision has been filed against the order dated 31.10.1996 of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in I.A. No. 12 of 1996 in unnumbered C.M.A. of 1996. The petitioner herein has filed the said application for condoning the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he is an old man aged about 63 years and he was sick and informed that he was not able to do anything independently and he instructed his counsel to file the copy application, and due to the non-deposit of more papers, the copy application had been struck off and subsequently the copy application has been filed afresh and the copies have been obtained and the appeal was preferred. The lower Court, without c...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rao K. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR64]; (1998)IIILLJ1216Mad
D. Raju, J. 1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge of this Court dated April 3, 1991, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/ workman seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent made in P. G. Appeal No. 18 of 1986 dated October 27, 1986, so far as the firstrespondent has negatived the claim of the appellant/ writ petitioner by allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent-management. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the stand taken before us are that the appellant was employed by the second respondent-management from January 1, 1961, and he retired from service on February 28, 1985, and his last drawn wages was Rs. 440 per month and on that basis projected a claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,Madras, the controlling authority, under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by filing Form. I application claiming g...
Tag this Judgment!Lekshmiammal and ors. Vs. S. Nagalekshmiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ294
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Legal representatives of deceased plaintiff in O.S. No. 54 of 1980, on the file of Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, are the appellants.2. Suit filed by the deceased plaintiff was for specific performance of contract of sale, on the following al-legations:Deceased plaintiff was an honorary physician and he was running a dispensary, and he was residing in the plaint schedule property from 1.12.1958 as a tenant. The original owner was late Gomathi Ammal, mother of first defendant. The agreed rent was Rs. 35. Gomathi Ammal was sick and she was living with plaintiff and his family from June, 1968 and was receiving regular treatment from plaintiff for acute rheumatism, high blood-pressure and other diseases. She died in the plaint schedule building on 27.1.1976. It is said that on the death of Gomathi Ammal, the plaint schedule property was inherited by first defendant, who is her only heir V.R.Sundaram, husband of first defendant, was managing the affairs of the first d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »