Chennai Court August 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Annai Velankanni Siru Viyabarigal Munnetra Sangam Represented by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ141
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Annai Velankanni Siru Viyabarigal Munnetra Sangam represented by its Secretary has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the members of the petitioner-Sangam from the respective petty shops located in the Church Road, Velankanni.2. The case of the petitioner Sangam is briefly stated hereunder:It is registered under the Societies Registration Act on 27.9.1988. There are 26 members in the said Sangam. the members of the petitioner-Sangam have put up small petty shops in the road leading to Annai Vellankanni Church from South to North and the said road belongs to Highways Department. There is no hindrance to anybody including traffic because of the location of these shops. They are all small petty traders doing business like selling of groundnut, sweets, pori kadalai and other items such as turmeric, kumkum etc. to the pilgrims who visits the famous Annai Velankanni Church. The members of the petitioner-Sangam ear...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Vairaprakasam Sivakast
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)454
R. JA YASIMHA BAB U, J.The substance of the question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue revolves round the meaning of the word 'necessary' found in Expln. I to s. 64 of the IT Act-whether it is to be construed liberally as contended by the Revenue or narrowly.2. Explanation 1 to s. 64 of the Act reads as under'For the purpose of cl. (i), the individual in computing whose total income the income referred to in that clause is to be included, shall be the husband or wife whose total income (excluding income referred to in that clause) is greater; and, for the purpose of cl. (iii), the income of the minor child from the partnership shall be included in the income of that parent whose total income (excluding the income referred to in that clause) is greater; and where any such income is once included in the total income of either spouse or parent, any such income arising in any succeeding year shall not be included in the total income of the other spouse or parent unless the ITO ...
P. Subba Naidu Vs. the Licencee, Sri Lala Talkies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ688
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 4.2. The fourth respondent in Writ Petition No. 15915 of 1997 is the appellant before us, challenging the order dated 29.6.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in the said writ petition. Writ Petition No. 15915 of 1997 aforementioned was filed by the respondent No. 1, herein, which was filed for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Secretary to Government, (Home Cinema-II) Department in G.O. No. (ID) 666, dated 24.6.1997. The respondent No. 1, herein was the licensee of Sri Lala Talkies, Vadipatti, Madurai District. The said theatre originally belonged to late Pon.Perumalsamy Naidu. On his death, it devolved on his three sons viz., Perumal, Pon.Subbiah and Thirumalaisamy Naidu. Perumal is the eldest son among the three brothers, There was division of properties among the brothers. However, the said cinema theatre ...
M/S. Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., Rep. by Its Authorised Person K. Moh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)794; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)403; [1998]94CompCas879(Mad); 1998(2)CTC372
ORDER1. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.3063 of 1997 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. The respondent as described before this Court is the accused in that case. That was a private complaint filed alleging an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that Calendar Case, after the issue of process, the accused filed M.P. No.1444 of 1998 to discharge him from the offence. That petition was opposed and yet the learned trial Magistrate allowed that petition by ordered dated 10.6.1998 resulting in the accused being discharged from the offence in that Calendar Case. It is the correctness of that order that is being questioned in this revision before this Court. 2. In this order the parties to the revision would hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant and the accused for convenient sake. 3. Though more than One ground was raised before the Lower Court on behalf of the accused to discharge him from the offence, yet the ...
P. Ramakrishnan, 3, 8th St, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83 and 2 Others Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC723
ORDER1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are common, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from demanding or collecting compounding fee in respect of the petitioners vehicles.3. It is the case of the petitioners that their vehicles have been checked by the checking Squard and the charge memo has been issued for the contravention of the conditions mentioned in the charge memo in the respective cases. After furnishing the charge memo, without passing any final orders as required under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act the respondents are compelling the petitioners to pay the compounding fee.4. The Learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioners have paid the compounding fee in respect of one of the charge memos and further agreed to pay the compounding fee in respect of other charge memos. The conduct of the petitione...
Anandan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1368
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Crl. R.C. No. 807/95 and Crl. R.C. No, 878/95 are being disposed of by a common order.2. Nagarajan (A 1), the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 878/95 and Anandan (A2), the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 807/95 were convicted in S.C. No. 226/91 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee for the offence under Section 392 read with 397, I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months each. As' against the said conviction, the petitioner Nagarajan filed an appeal in C:A. No. 46/94 and the petitioner Anandan filed C.A. No. 48/94 before the Sessions Court, Changalpattu, which in turn confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, these Revisions. 3. The facts are theses:- (i) The petitioner Nagarajan was working as a Carpenter along with other persons under the contractor P.W. 8 Sundravelan in the house of P.W. 1 Vijayalakshmi: The said Vijayalakshmi was residing in Door No. 151, Devi Karu...
Pattusamy Vs. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ611
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for both and perused the records placed before me.2. The above revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 9.3.1998 made in I.A. No. 112 of 1998 in O.S. No. 126 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Sankari, thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead him as necessary party to the above suit and bringing him on record as the 5th defendant therein.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the above said suit in O.S. No. 126 of 1997 in which he has filed an application as third party petitioner to implead him as necessary party to the above proceedings thus bringing him on record as the 5th defendant therein is the suit for permanent injunction filed by the sole respondent herein, making the entire harijan community of the village as the defendants therein and naming the defendants 1 to 4 therein as re...
Mrs. Juli John Vs. Raman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2174
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mrs. Juli John, the petitioner herein, challenging the judgment acquitting the first respondent in C.C. No. 185/90 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Said pet, Madras in respect of the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. has filed this Revision.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner was doing her M. Phil, course in Botany at the Centre for Advanced Studies, Guindy, Campus, University of Madras. Dr. N. Raman, the first respondent was the Lecturer in the Botany department and he was her guide. On 12-9-89, she went to the room of the first respondent at about 4.00 p.m. A seminar for M. Phil students was scheduled to be held on 18-9-89. Before that, the persons had to do dissertation work. Therefore, to discuss about the work of the seminar, the complainant/the petitioner herein, went to his room. At that time, in the room the complainant and the accused were alone there. After discussion for a while, suddenly Dr. Raman misbeha...
Siddi Raajan M. Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ823Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dismissing W.P No. 2772 of 1986 on March 10, 1997 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. For convenience, the parties to the present writ appeal will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Kondareddy community, a scheduled tribe and even as per his school records, his community has been recorded so. The Tahsildar, Bhavani after verification issued a community certificate that the petitioner belongs to Kondareddy community. It is, the further case of the petitioner, that he and his relatives belong to the community of Kondareddy, a scheduled tribe and they have been issued community certificate to the said effect.3. According to the petitioner his forefathers were living in Burugur village, Burugur Taluk, which previously formed part of Kollekal Taluk, before State reorganisation. According to the petitioner, consequent to the downfall of Vijayanagara rulers...
R.V.K. Rajaramanathan Vs. R. Saranathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC526
ORDER1. The respondent filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 seeking to evict the petitioner on the ground that the said building is needed for doing business.2. According to the respondent, he is doing business along with his mother as his mother is having licence to run rice retail shop business. Admittedly, the said business had been carried on in a rented premises.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, according to the definition of Section 7(a) of the Act, the members of the family means only his spouse and dependent children and mother cannot be included in the said definition. On that basis, the learned counsel has submitted that for mother's business, the petitioner cannot ask for the said premises, which is not permitted under the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that such definition cannot be extended to bring those persons other than the person mentioned in the said defin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »