Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
K. Mani Vs. L. Indumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ62
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 1352 of 1984, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee, is the appellant.2. Respondent herein filed the suit against the appellant to declare that she is entitled to have free ingress and egrees to the suit property set out in the Schedule to the plaint, from the Railway Station Road on the eastern side from all points of view of her property, and to grant a mandatory injunction thereby directing the appellant to remove the hut put up by him in the Railway Station Road in Survey No. 1017 of Korattur Village, which is an obstruction to her free access to the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from trespassing into the suit property.3. In the plaint, plaintiff/respondent has stated that she is the absolute owner of the site measuring 8 1/2 cents in Survey No. 973/2B-1B situated in Korattur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Madras, having purchased the same from one Dr. V. Arumugam on ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi Vs. Ambiga Deivasigamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC453
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is directed against the dismissal order passed in C.M.P.No. 1345 of 1996 in A.S.SR.No. 47457 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The said petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for ejectment in O.S.No. 3366 of 1987 before the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the same was decreed ex parte on 20.1.1993. Even though the revision petitioners herein subsequently filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, along with an application to condone the delay of 10 days, the trial court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, a revision was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 5.2.1996 and ultimately, an S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. on 7.5.1996 refusing to condone the d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Best Supply Agency
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR208(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. In these three tax case petitions, the Department requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment year 1986-87 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,40,185 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?' Assessment year 1988-89 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,85,336 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as a wholesale dealer in engineering cutting tools. For the assessment year 1986-87, originally the return was filed on March 24, 1987, showing an income of Rs. 2,21,575. The assessment was completed on November 2...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Al. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)IIMLJ560
ORDER1. By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against him pending trial before the Special court, Madurai, in C.C. No. 33 of 1996 and 34 of 1996 on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :- The petitioner is an Officer working in the Indian Overseas Bank under the control of Nagapattinam Regional Office. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager/Officer in charge of Arabic College Extension Counter, on the allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/-, Delhi Special Police Establishment Madras Branch registered a case for the alleged offences under Secs. 420, 467 read with Secs. 471, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended under Rule 12(1)(a) of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Ruckmangathan Vs. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC595; (1998)IMLJ114
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff in O.S.826 of 1985, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. Petitioner herein filed the suit to direct the respondent to deliver possession of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. In the plaint, it is alleged that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Dharmalinga Naicker and his sons and they were residing in that property. For the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter, Dharmalinga Naicker wanted to raise loan, and for the said purpose, he approached the defendant, who is a money lender. He wanted a sum of Rs. 3,250. Since the defendant insisted on security and also wanted to enjoy the property in lieu of interest, possession was handed over to him. It is said that possession of the defendant is only as a charge-holder, and he was the mortgagee for all purposes. Since the defendant was having possession and was...
Tag this Judgment!M. Magudapathi Vs. the Manager and Correspondent Savariyappa Udayar Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC719; (1997)IIMLJ499
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 24.7.1995 dismissing the petitioner from service, he has filed the present writ petition for quashing the same and consequential direction for re-instatement with all backwages and other benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:-Since the first respondent school being a minority institution, the provisions relating to approval, appeal and other provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are not applicable as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 22.4.1976, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the entire charges from charge No. 1 to 10 which is found in the impugned order of dismissal would reveal that they are for the alleged complaint against the wrong administration of the first respon...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karuppanna Gounder Vs. C. Visuvasam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ155
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Karur. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises on the ground that he has committed acts of waste, which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building.2. In the eviction petition, in paragraph 10, the origi-nal landlady Michael Ammal has said that the tenant, petitioner herein, has made some alterations without permission and put the building into a different user and also committed acts of waste which have materi-ally impaired the value and utility of the building and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on that ground.3. The said allegation is answered in paragraph 4 of the counter wherein the tenant has said that he has not made use of the building for any other purpose, nor has he committed any acts of waste. He has also said that he has...
Tag this Judgment!Hindu Baktha Jana Sabai, Represented by Its President Vs. State of Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ337
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant by the writ petition sought a declaration that a decree of a civil court, passed as far back as 23rd October, 1967, as being without jurisdiction as well as not binding on the petitioner, as he was not a party. Secondly, it is stated that he cannot get his rights enforced under Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.2. In order to support the submission made by the learned Counsel he relies on the decision in Subba Rao v. Jagannadha Rao : [1964]2SCR310 , by contending that a compromise decree is an agreement between the parties having the super-imposition of the seal of the court. Consequently, the compromise decree can be challenged in writ jurisdiction.3. We find no force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant. Though there is no doubt that the trend of the courts earlier was that the compromise decree was an agreement having the super-imposition of the seal of the court, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Mudaliar Trust by Its Managing Trustee N. Ramaswamy, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC719
ORDER1. The appellant herein was the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.9375 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 3.7.1992 by the learned Single Judge, aggrieved by which, this appeal is filed. . 2. The appellant is a Trust. The second respondent herein initiated proceedings for assessing the lands to an extent of 1.75 acres in survey Nos.537/5 and 538/4 for levying tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant was directed toappear for an enquiry on 23.5.1993. He appeared on that date and presented a petition on 24.5.83 requesting for a week's time. Time was granted till 5.6.1983 which date he did not turn up. 3. The second respondent passed an order holding that the said lands were liable for assessment from 1381 fasli onwards as the Adangal extracts from Fasli years 1381 to 1390 indicated that the lands were lying waste and not cultivated. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1012Mad
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J., dated December 4, 1995 in W. P. No. 10503 of 1985, reversing the order passed by the Ist respondent/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 62 of 1983 awarding Rs. 3,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of dismissal from service. The management is the appellant. 2. The appellant was engaged in the production of textile spinning machinery. It employs about 3,000 workmen. The workmen have to work in two shifts. The various machines are operated at a very high speed and if they remain unattended, it may pose a very risk to the persons nearby as well as the machines. Having regard to the nature of machine operations and the risk factor involved, the workmen are required to maintain a constant vigil and also remain near their work place during the shift hours. Any workman who is found sleeping while on duty and who is away from his working place is invariably awarded the punis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »