Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Technical Education, Rep. by Its Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC475
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The dispute in this writ appeal relates to the amendment of the regulations with reference to the Diploma Course in Engineering, issued by the Director of Technical Education with effect from 2.4.1981. The respondents is the writ appeal had taken their V Semester examinations in December, 1980. For some reason or the other they had boycotted the examination and consequently wrote the V and VI Semester examinations in May, 1981. Even according to the appellant/Government, the amended regulation will apply only from 1981. Legally also, the amendment dated 2.4.1981 cannot have retrospective operation. The effect of the amendment is that if the candidates do not pass the V and VI semesters in one single attempt, they will not be entitled to the award of first class. In this case, the respondents were awarded second class because when they wrote the examination in May, 1981 it was the second attempt for them in respect of V Semester. The learned single Judge who heard t...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha and anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police N.i.B. Crime Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC564
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramanian, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem District dated 15.11.1990 in S.C. No. 122 of 1990. The accused in the above sessions case stood charged Under Section 20(p)(1) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) on the allegation that on 10.2.1990 at about 11.25 a.m., the accused was found in possession of kanja worth about Rs. 2,000 without any valid permit or licence.2. After due trial, the learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty under the provisions of the NDPS Act and imposed punishment for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo further imprisonment for two more weeks. It is as against the said judgment, the above appeal has been filed. Even though the evidence in the case undoubtedly point out the quilt of the accused, unfortunately in view of the non-compliance of certain mandatory-provisions in the act, the accused/appellant herein becomes en...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) and Land Acquisition Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ562
Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsels the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The appellant herein acquired an extent of 73 cents in Kolumadai Village for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars. The respondents are the owners of the land. A necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 4.4.1990. However the appellant took possession of the land on 17.8.1989. There is nothing on record to show that the possession had been taken with the consent of the respondents.2. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in Award No. 1 of 1991, dated 18.9.1990 wherein he has fixed the compensation for the land at Rs. 20 per cent. The respondents preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Sub Court, Cheranmahadevi had enhanced the compensation for the land from Rs. 20 per cent to Rs. 300 per cent. The appellant did not produce any documents. Only the respondents produced four documents. O...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Karthikeyan Vs. the Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ365
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the connected records of the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings in R.O.C. NO. 9573/97/A1 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the appointment of 2nd respondent as fit person and direct the 1st respondent to nominate the petitioner as a fit person of Arulmigu Umayakaliamman Temple at Mangalapatti Village, Kankayam Taluk.2. The facts are not in controversy. Heard Mr. T.K. Rammohan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. T. Kokilavani, learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent and Mr. W.C. Thiruvengadam, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.3. The petitioner's father was declared as hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Umayakaliamman Temple at Mangalapatti under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in O.A. No. 63 of 1971 by order dated 4.12.1971 by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, certain charges have been fram...
Tag this Judgment!N. Samikannu Vs. the District Collector of Pudukottai, Pudukottai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC753
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the order of 1the District Collector, Pudukottai, rejecting their tenders. Since the issue involved is common and an identical order has been passed by the respondent, the same may be disposed of by the following common order.2. A Notification was published in Pudukottai District Gazette (Gazette No.4) on 1.3.95 calling for tender applications for the lease of stone quarry measuring 2.2.95. Hectares in S.No.65 of Kalkudi Village, 1.74.09 hectares in S.No.18 of Vittamapatti Village, 0.68.5. Hectares in S.No.74 of Boothakudi Village, 1.35.0. Hectares in S.No.149/2 of Veerapatti Village, 0.31.5 hectares in S.No.2/11 of Panangudi Village and 0.50.0. Hectares in S.No.251 of Kunnanthur Village Pudukottai District for a period of 5 years from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 in respect of stone quarries and for 3 years from 1995-96 to 1997-98 in respect of gravel and pebble quarries. The last date for receipt of tender applications was f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR367(Mad)
ORDER1. The assessment completed under section 143(3) on March 25, 1985, is revised for the following reasons : 1. To give effect to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order cited above. 2. The business income arrived at should be Rs. 35,98,223 instead of Rs. 34,98,223. A letter was issued on September 12, 1985, to the assessee calling for objection. The assessee requests allowance of depreciation omitted to be allowed Rs. 8,97,482, while it has no objection for rectifying the error in total income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also allowed the depreciation on staple fibre machinery. Therefore, depreciation at 15 per cent. on stable fibre machinery is allowed and the error in totalling is rectified in this order as under : (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)I. Income from house property 12,529II. Business incomeIncome as per original 34,98,223assessment dated 25-3-1985Add : Difference in totalling 1,00,000-----------35,98,223Less : Relief allowed bythe CIT (A) 14,36,7961. Incenti...
Tag this Judgment!Rehaboth Traders, by Partner R. FranklIn and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC494; (1998)IIMLJ318
ORDERR.R. Jain, J.1. The appellant Rehaboth Traders, a partnership firm, having failed to discharge its liability, was adjudged as insolvent in Insolvency Proceedings No. 34 of 1991. The respondent Canara Bank had advanced loan to the appellant against Hypothecation of goods. After adjudication, as the matter was referred to the Official Assignee, the respondent Bank also lodged its claim as secured creditor in Claim No. 127 of 1991 for a sum of Rs. 13,23,588.51 ps. with future interest. However, after holding an enquiry, the official assignee held the respondent Bank as unsecured creditor vide an order dated 30.11.1993. Aggrieved by the said order of the official assignee, the respondent Bank preferred an appeal in Application No. 140 of 1994 Under Section 86 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act in the High Court. The learned Single Judge, by his detailed order dated 2.9.1996, allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the official assignee and directing the official assignee to...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppusamy Pillai and 5 ors. Vs. Swami Subramania Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC261; (1997)IIMLJ625
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In the above said Letters Patent Appeals, the following question was referred for decision:'Whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order of a learned single Judge of the High Court passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal?'2. The necessary facts leading to the reference of the abovesaid question are as follows: One Durairajan and his son D. Rajkumar filed a scheme suit in O.S.No. 684 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, to frame a scheme for the administration of a trust known as G.R. Govindarajulu & Sons Charities. The trust was created by a trust deed dated 15.9.1958. In the said scheme suit, LA. No. 944 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining D. Srinivasan from acting as a trustee. LA. No. 943 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from re-constituting and replacing or altering the Trust Board without the sanction of the Court. Interim injunction in both the a...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Alwar Vs. Bank of Tamil Nadu Through Its Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC28
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in A.S.No. 126 on 1982 on 16.7.1983.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,842.15 on the following allegations. The defendant obtained a loan of Rs. 15,000 from the plaintiffs Bank on 10.6.1977 agreeing to pay interest at 16% with quarterly rests. The defendant also executed promissory note as security for the same on 10.6.1977. He also executed a letter of undertaking agreeing to pay the said sum in 30 monthly equal instalments. It was further agreed that the defendants should pay the interest as fixed by the Bank from time to time and pay penal interest at 3% over the scheduled rate in default. On 10.6.1977 the defendant deposited with the plaintiff at Thachanallur the title deeds with intent to create an equitable mortgage over the properties set out in the plaint. On 11.6.1977 confirming the deposit of the title deeds the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Ananda Swarup and ors. Vs. the Registrar High Court of Judicature ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ201
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioners who are Court Officers in the establishment of this Court have filed this writ petition praying for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records of the first respondent relating to Notification No. 19/1997 issued in Roc. No. 29/97 Con. B2 dated 19.3.1997, to quash the same far it relates to the second respondent, and directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Sub Assistant Registrar (Statistics) strictly in accordance with the Madras High court Service Rules, and pass such further or other orders as deemed fit by this Court.2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners, as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are the following:The petitioners are Selection Grade Court Officers working under the Control of the first respondent; they have put in more than 30 years of service having joined as Assistants. One Thiru. A.D. Sankar retired...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »