Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments
Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities Rep. by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC391; (1997)IIMLJ486
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. A.S. Nos. 976 and 1011 of 1994 have been filed by two sets of defendants in O.S. No. 10358 of 1989, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Tr. Appeal No. 10 of 1997 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10256 of 1989, on the file of the same court.2. The first suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10256 of 1989 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way committing trespass or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Door No. 139, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 and also for other consequential reliefs. Defendant is the plaintiff in the connected suit.3. Plaint allegations in O.S. No. 10256 of 1989 may be summarised as follows:It is said that the schedule property belonged to the plaintiff, which is one of several other properties in the possession and management of the plaintiff. It is said that it was originally let out to M/s. A.T. M...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V. Ramalakshmi and ors. Vs. the Director of Medical Education and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ440
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners who are working in the Government Hospitals applied for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for 1997-98. Their applications were not considered on the basis that some disciplinary proceedings against them either contemplated or pending on the date of making their applications, on the basis of para 4 in Clause VI of the prospectus for the year 1997-98 regarding admission to Post graduate Diploma/Degree/MDS Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The said clause reads as follows:4. Service candidates should send their applications through proper channel with forwarding authority's remarks, if any disciplinary proceedings are pending against them, service candidates should not send the application. This is applicable to Tamilnadu services, local body/public Sector of Tamil Nadu or Central Government, Defence Service candidates, etc., forwarding officers need not forward the application?The candi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavani Madhurakavi Vs. V. Chandrasekaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ566
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 44 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikal is the revision petitioner.2. Originally, the landlady filed the said R.C.O.P. and when the matter was pending before the appellate authority, she died. Her legal representatives are the respondents herein. The R.C.O.P. was filed by the landlady for eviction of the residential building under Section 10(3)(A)I of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. It is averred by the landlady in the eviction petition that the agreed rent was Rs. 350 per month. She further said that she was residing with her son Chandrasekaran in a rented building and the landlord of that building demanded vacant possession. Therefore, the landlady sought for vacant possession of the schedule building.3. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner herein, she stated that she was making use of the building for non-residential purpose and therefore, eviction for residential purpose could...
Tag this Judgment!Boston and ors. Vs. S.A. Akbar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ270
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revisions are by the respective tenants in the various rent control petitions filed by the respective landlords. Even though all the Rent Control petitions were separately tried, since the matter relates to portions of the same building, and more or less a common defence was also taken by the revision petitioners, though separate orders have been passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, when the matter came before this Court, in these Revisions, a common argument was taken by all the revision petitioners, which is a general defence taken in all these cases. Since all the matters were heard together, I intend to dispose of the same by this common order, though facts relating to various revisions are separately extracted.2. C.R.P. No. 450 of 1997 : In this case, the landlord is one S.A. Akbar, who is the absolute owner of Shop No. 6 in the ground floor of premises No. 5, Pursawalkam High Road, Vepery, Madras-7. The agreed rent ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jayaprasad Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Adi Dravida Welf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC607
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal, Aggrieved against the order dated 18.1.1997 in un-numbered E.A. of 1991 in E.P.No. 77 of 1996 in L.A.O.P.No. 87 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, the petitioner/5th claimant has filed the present revision before this Court.2. The petitioner herein who is the fifth claimant has filed an application under Rule 163, 165 of the Civil Rules of Practice praying to issue a cheque for Rs. 3,16,174 in favour of Mr. R. Alexander, Advocate for the petitioner (5th Claimant) being the compensation due to him for an extent of 0.72 cents. The court below by order dated 18.1.1997, has passed the following order:-'The petition was called in open court on 18.1.1997, the Government Pleader was absent and petitioner counsel was also absent. On a perusal of the records and the letter received from the Special Tahsildar, Nilakkottai, it is seen that appeal is said to have been pref...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thangavelu Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC283
ORDER1. Aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated 25.2.1992 modifying the order passed by the Regional Manager, viz., stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect into the removal from service of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said order on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:While the petitioner was working as Quality Inspector in the respondent Corporation, after framing five charges, enquiry was conducted against him. He has submitted an explanation denying all the charges. Initially the charges were framed under Rule 16(1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationService Rules. After enquiry, the Regional Manager, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Region by his proceedings dated 12.4.1989 imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. While, such is the position, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.M. Sivaprakasam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR820(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan J.1. This writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of K. Venkataswami J., as he then was, in W.P. No. 3333 of 1992, dated December 20, 1993, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The appellant is a doctor by profession. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1979-80, he filed returns on March 31, 1980, voluntarily. No notice under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was served on the appellant prior to his filing of the returns. According to the appellant, he was not maintaining regular books of account and therefore, had to estimate his professional income taking into consideration the acquisition he had made and on the basis of a cash flow chart prepared on May 4, 1981, the appellant filed a petition under section 273A of the Act for waiver of interest and penalties for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1979-80 to the first respondent. In that petition, the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Sasikala Natarajan and anr. Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC585
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. These are the third successive bail petitions filed by these petitioners, who are facing the charges for the offence Under Section 8(1) read with Section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, hereinafter to be referred to as F.E.R.A. Their last petitions Crl.O.P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1997 were dismissed by this Court on 11.2.1997. Thereafter now, they have filed these petitions seeking bail.2. J.J. T.V. Private Limited was a telecasting company for which the petitioner Sasikala Natarajan was the Chairperson and the other petitioner Baskaran her nephew, was the Managing Director. The respondent Enforcement Directorate would allege that there was foreign exchange violation to the tune of Rs. 2.6 Crores in the broadcasting activity of J.J. T.V. Private Limited. According to the respondent, it came to light that previously for hitting transponder and uplinking facilities, certain amounts were paid to M/s. Subicbay, Philipines and also M/s. Rimsat, U.S.A. for the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal and anr. Vs. Sellani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ251
D. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.12.1992 in A.S. No. 699 of 1982, whereunder the learned single Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, dated 10.8.1981 in O.S. No. 210 of 1979, which was filed by the respondent herein in forma pauperis for declaring that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to the suit properties as per the terms of the trust deed dated 29.1.1894 and for a consequential direction to the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint 'B' schedule properties with future profits. The suit came to be decreed, except in respect of future profits, which were left open to be decided in a separate proceedings.2. The suit 'B' schedule properties measuring an extent of 6.61 acres originally belonged to one Krishna Rao, who, executed a deed dated 29.1.1894, marked as Ex. A-1, in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Beach Estates, Rep. by Partners Vs. Likhami Holdings Limited Rep. by M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC566
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 252 of 1995 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the learned Principle District Judge, Chengalpattu in C.M.A.No. 55 of 1996 reversing the order dated 24.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in I.A.No. 350 of 1995 in O.S.No. 252 of 1995 and dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs i.e., I.A.No. 350 of 1995 for grant of injunction.2. The parties in this order will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit itself.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing to this civil revision petition are the following :-The plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No. 252 of 1995 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu for grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents and representatives, from interfering with the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »