Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
Dharmaraja Vs. Chinnathambia Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ73
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the concurrent findings of the courts below.2. The Plaintiff filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil claiming damages. The plaintiff's case is: That the plaintiff is a tenant and is running lea-Hotel in the building bearing Door No. 3, North Car Street, at Sankarankoil. It belongs to the defendant. The defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to vacate the building. The plaintiff after receipt of the same has sent a suitable reply. Thereupon the defendant filed R.C.O.P.No. 3 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif Kovilpatti for eviction. The plaintiff filed a counter and contested the petition. On 27.3.1980 the plaintiff herein was examined in K .C.O.P.No. 3 of 1978. During cross examination the counsel for the defendant put certain questions. The questions put were annoying, shocking and disturbing to the plaintiff. On the objection of the plaintiff the Presiding Officer refused ...
Tag this Judgment!Rehaboth Traders by Partner R. FranklIn and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ318
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 respondents Bank also lodged its claim as secured creditor in Claim No. 127 of 1991 for a sum of Rs. 13,23,588.51 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 t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)173
A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. :The above writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned single judge of this Court made in WP No. 2132 of 1987, dt. 28th July, 1995 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and thereby quashing the proceedings of the CIT, Madurai, in C. No. 401/1/104/86-87 dt. 24th February, 1987, whereunder the appellant herein has chosen to call upon the respondent herein to show-cause as to why the order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment should not be made. In the concluding portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned notice, it is stated that the depreciation as computed at 15 per cent in the original order dt. 25th March, 1985, but actually allowed in the revision order dt. 11th December, 1985, is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and hence erroneous, requiring interference by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The IAC (Asst.) Madurai, as the AO, while making the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!S. Elango Vs. S. Ravindran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3095; I(1999)DMC594
ORDER1. Third accused in C.C. No. 162 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C. Nos. 509 of 1995 and 540 of 1995. The respondent in each of the revisions is the complainant in that case before the lower Court. The parties in this revision are referred to in the rank in which they are described before the lower Court. The complainant filed a private complaint against seven accused alleging offences under Sections 494 and 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant's sister was married to the first accused on 14-3-1980 at Rajeswari Kalyana Mandapam at Dr. Radhikrishnan Salai, Madras, according to the rites of Hindu Religion to which the marrying spouses belonged. Thereafter, the marriage was registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriage, Saidapet, Madras 35. After the marriage, the first accused resided with his wife for 1-1/2 years at No. 14, Balfour Road, Kellys, Madras 10. In 1981...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Alias Kabir Vs. the District Magistrate and the District Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC297
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. The father of the detenu has preferred this petition, challenging the order of detention, dated 5.9.1996, passed by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.M.P. No. 3/NSA/96, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Sections 1 (a) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in short), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the relationship of India with Sri Lanka and to the maintenance of public order.2. The detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention, that on 19.8.1996 at 2.00 A.M., the detenu and another Sivaperumal (detenu in H.C.P. No. 1183 of 1996) were found near the TV Tower in Rameswaram and seeing the Police Party, they tried to run away from the spot. The police entertained suspicion and surrounded them and on search found the detenu possessing five gelatin sticks, five detonators, a black cord of 30 cms. length of fuse wire kept in an yellow colou...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambia Pillai (Died) and 7 ors. Vs. Dharmaraja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC492
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the concurrent findings of the courts below.2. The plaintiff filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil claiming damages. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff is a tenant and is running Tea-Hotel in the building bearing Door No. 3, North Car Street, at Sankarankovil, It belongs to the defendant. The defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff calling up him to vacate the building. The plaintiff after receipt of the same has sent a suitable reply. Thereupon the defendant filed RCOP. No. 3 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif Kovilpatti for eviction. The plaintiff filed a counter and contested the petition. On 27.3.1980 the plaintiff herein was examined in RCOP. No. 3 of 1978. During cross examination the counsel for the defendant put certain questions. The questions put were annoying shocking and disturbing to the plaintiff. On the objection of the plaintiff the Presiding Officer refused to recor...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rathinavelu Vs. S. Udayasankaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ485
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil decision has been preferred against the order, dated 11.1.1997 in R.C.A. No. 674 of 1991 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, Court of Small Cause, Madras confirming the Order of the Rent Controller, X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dated 19.11.1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 3403 of 1986.2. The respondent filed the petition for eviction under Sections l0(2)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and on other grounds. After considering the evidence the Rent Controller allowed the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and demolition. As against that order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also con-curred with the Rent Controller and found that there was wilful default in the payment of rent and the building is required for immediate demolition. Hence he has also confirmed the order of eviction. As against the said order the revision petition has been ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Dhanalakshmi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu by the Commissioner and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ294
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the Notification dated 4.4.1979 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in Government Gazette No. 13-A, G.O. Ms. No. 517, Housing and Urban Development and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act published in Government Gazette dated 1.5.1982 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land in S. No. 225y2 in Makakulam village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same.2. Admittedly, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (thereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 517 Housing and Urban Development dated 4.4.1979 for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Even according to the petitioner, no objection had been raised. There-after, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O. Ms. No. 286 Housing and Urban Development dated 30.3.1982 and the same was...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopinathan Vs. Mannangatti Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC54
ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal is the defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1982, on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram. The respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff in that suit. In this judgment parties to this appeal are referred to in the rank in which they are described in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.14 of 1982 in the court of Sub-Judge, Villupuram (which was originally taken on file as O.S.No.156 of 1979 by the Sub-Court, Tindivanam) against the defendant claiming a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.5.70. In fact this agreement referred to in the plaint and relied upon by the plaintiff is as an agreement for reconvenyance. This suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge by judgment and decree dated 29.10.82. The defendant filed an appeal which was taken on file as A.S.No.28 of 1983 by the Additional District Judge, South Arcot, Cuddalore. The Appellate Judge by judgment and decree dated 15.9.83 affirmed the decree of the trial jud...
Tag this Judgment!District Livestock Farm, Abishekapatti, Represented by Its Deputy Dir. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC473; (1998)IMLJ259
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The appellant filed W.P. No. 15752 of 1995 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 20.4.1992 made in I.D. No. 70 of 1987 on the file of the second respondent herein. Before the second respondent an issue was raised whether the non-employment of the first respondent was justified or not. In the event of the non-employment being not justified, the Labour Court was called upon to find out the relief to be given to the first respondent. Before the Labour Court an issue raised whether the appellant was an industry and whether the first respondent can at all agitate the matter as an industrial dispute before the second respondent. The Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the definition of the word 'industry', and on the basis of the evidence that the appellant was in fact an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has found that several saleable articles were being manufactured in the appellant i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »