Chennai Court August 1998 Judgments
Arumugam and ors. Vs. TuticorIn Visvakarma Dharma Paripalana Sangam Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ266
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. While the revisions C.R.P. No. 3500 of 1992 and C.R.P. No. 8 of 1993 were filed by the tenants against the concurrent order of eviction made in R.C.O.P. Nos. 60 and 50 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Tuticorin confirming in R.C.A. No. 68 of 1989 and 5 of 1991 respectively, other revisions namely C.R.P. Nos. 3501 to 3510 of 1992 are preferred by the tenants against the order of eviction passed by the learned, Appellate Authority made in R.C.A. Nos. 75 of 1989, 23 to 30 and 45 of 1990, reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, dismissing R.C.O.P. Nos. 62, 66, 64, 67, 63 and 61 of 1987 12 of 1988, 65 of 1987, 13 of 1988 and 57 of 1987 respectively.2. In the case of C.R.Ps. Nos. 3503, 3505, 3509 of 1992 and 8 of 1993, the respondent-landlord filed the respective R.C.O.Ps. under Sections 10(2)(i), 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(ii)(a) on the ground that(a) the respective revision petitioner-tenant had committed willful defa...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.V.V. Elanchezhian and anr. Vs. K.V.V. Chockalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ583
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The second petitioner and the respondents are brothers. The first petitioner is the son of one K.V. Veeranan Ambalam, who is the another brother of the petitioner No. 2 and respondents 1 and 2. A dispute had arisen between them in respect of division of the properties. Arbitrators were appointed and the parties executed a Muchalika separately and handed over the same to the Arbitrators. On the basis of the same, the arbitrators also inspected the properties and after ascertaining the information from the third parties and considering the representations made by the parties, passed the award on 23.8.1995. The Arbitrators sent the copy of the award to the concerned parties by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. After receipt of the true copy of the award, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed the Arbitration O.P. in Ar.O.P. No. 42 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai. According to the petitioners since the opposite parties did not agree for the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Murugesan and ors. Vs. E.K. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ348
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Even though the petition posted was only to dispense with the production of the original order, maintainability of the review applies tion itself was heard even at its SR stage.2. Against an order of ad-interim injunction, a revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of ad-interim injunction, police protection was also granted by trial court, against which also a revision petition was filed. Both the revisions were heard by me, and I allowed those revisions, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 997 and 998 of 1998 as per my order dated 14.7.1998. I gave certain directions to the lower court that the property itself will have to be re-delivered and the revision petitioner (E.K. Palanisami) must be put in possession forthwith, and without any further application, and if necessary, he must be restored with possession of the property with police help.3. It is not disputed by the review petitioners herein that against the common Order p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kothari Industrial Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)294
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The revenue is aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal in exercise of its judicial discretion.We would normally decline to interfere with the exercise of such judicial discretion by the Tribunal. We have not been shown any extraordinary circumstances of this case calling for our interference.2. The Tribunal had relied on the fact that in the decision rendered by this court concerning the same assessee, this court had observed that the assessee had in the case before the court failed to utilise the opportunity which the Tribunal had given to place relevant materials to establish that the several activities carried on by the assessee constituted a single business. On basis of material as was available on record, this court held against the assessee and found that the assessee's activity by carrying on plantation business and as also in running curing works constituted separate businesses. The decision of this court in Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]131ITR22...
Tag this Judgment!M. Narayanan Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City and 2 Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC439
ORDERJudgement pronounced by T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The petitioner Narayanan has been detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 read with the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.99 Public (Law and Order-F) Department dated 20.1.1998 preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. We deem it unnecessary to mention all the facts leading to the passing of the impugned, order dated 31.1.1998 as the habeas corpus petition has to be allowed on a short ground of non-mentioning of the right of the detenu to make representation to the Central Government in the grounds of detention. In paragraph 11 of the grounds of detention the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has got a right to make representation to the State Government and if so, the said representation has to be addressed to the chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. But, the gr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Santhanaraman Vs. the Telecom District Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ236
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is filed with the allegations that petitioner is a subscriber of telephone bearing No. MNG 775 installed at his residence at No. 38, East, First St, Mannargudi, Thanjavur, District since February, 1987, It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 29.9.1989 addressed to his father, received by the petitioner stating that the father has not paid the bill dated 1.9.1989 for Rs. 19,489 in respect of telephone No. MNG 364, which was disconnected on 20.5.1989 for non-payment of the said amount. If is further stated that if the above bill is not paid by 13.10.1989, the petitioner's telephone bearing No. MNG 775 will be disconnected without further notice. It is also alleged that the telephone No. MNGH 775 is associated by telephone No. MNG 364. Hence, he filed this petition seeking to quash the communication dated 19.9.1989 and to forbear the respondents from disconnecting the petitioner's telephone in pursuance of the communication da...
Tag this Judgment!S. Lalitha Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC710
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 insofar as it relates to the delegation of power to suspend the permit under Section 86(4) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 68(5) of the said Act as ultra vires Constitution of India insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, contract carriage operator and public carrier operator in Tamil Nadu State operating among others a contract carriage TSA. 3979 since replaced by TAS 3033 which is covered by an All India Tourist Permit issued by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The said vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Red Hills at 5.45 p.m. on 10.8.88 and four irregularities were reported. A charge Memo dated 21.12.88 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the perm...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarajan and ors. Vs. Dr. (Smt.) D. Padmavathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ306
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran. J.1. C.R.P. Nos. 1840 of 1994, 2583 to 2585 of 1994, 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995 are filed by the cultivating tenants, whose rights as cultivating tenants are protected under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, whereas, C.R.P. Nos. 2768 to 2773 of 1995 are filed by the landlady, namely, the respondent in C.R.P. Nos. 1840, 2583 to 2585 and 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995.2. The only question that arise for my consideration in the above revisions filed by the cultivating tenants, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 1840 of 1994, 2583 to 2585 of 1994, 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995, is whether the orders of the Revenue Court in the respective revision petitions are valid in law due to their composite nature, determining the arrears of rent, granting time in payment of such arrears and passing orders of eviction in default of payment of such arrears within the time so prescribed in the order.3. In C.R.P. Nos. 2768 to 2773 of 1995 filed by the respective...
Tag this Judgment!N.K.T. National Girls Higher Secondary School Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ11
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the respondents 6 to 12 or their agents, servants or men from inviting applications for admission to the petitioner-School, and respondents 13 and 14 from admitting students to the petitioner-School and also forbear the respondents 6 to 12 from appointing or dismissing teaching or non-teaching staff in the petitioner-School, 13th respondent-College and 14th respondent-Boys High School.2. 15th respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The same was founded by Shri N.K. Thirumalachariar, a leading Member of this Bar. Shri C.R. Pattabiraman, a doyen of the Bar was also one of the Founders of the Society. The Society was formed with the object of establishing educational, cultural, artistic and welfare institutions, and managing N.K. Thirumalachariar National Boys' High School Triplicane and N.K. Thirumalachariar National Girls' Higher Secondary Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Gopalakrishnan Vs. Mrs. Kumudam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC661
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. These appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree passed in C.S.Nos. 280 of 1981 and 44 of 1985 on the file of this Court.2. C.S.No. 280 of 1981 was filed by the plaintiff Mrs. Kumudam for specific performance of the contract dated 12.7.1979 against the defendant Mrs.Rajam Gopalakrishnan. C.S.No.44 of 1985 was initially filed in the City Civil Court as O.S.No. of 1980 and was later transferred to this Court for beingtried along with C.S. 280 of 1981. That suit was filed by Mrs. Rajam against Mrs. Kumudam (Plaintiff in C.S. No.280 1981 and her husband to deliver back the title deeds relating to the suit property.3. The case of the plaintiff Mrs. Kumudam in C.S.No. 280 of 1981 is as follows:The defendant Mrs. Rajam Gopalakrishnan is the owner of the property bearing plot No. 187 door No.46, West C.I.T. Nagar, Madras.600 035. She entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 12.7.1979 to sell the suit property for Rs. 2,05,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »