Chennai Court September 1999 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.
Gomathiammal Vs. M. Shanmuga Velayutham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC408
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 26.2.1996 made in RCA No. 21 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 4.5.1993 made in RCOP No. 9 of 1991 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif Srivilliputhur.2. The original petition before the Rent Controller has been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises contending thereby (i) that the property which is the subject matter of the tenancy, fell to the share of the landlord in a family partition which is of two items, one bearing door No.15 comprising of Ambika Rice Mill and the second item bearing door No. 16 comprising of a house and the adjoining zinc sheet building; (ii) that the said buildings were leased out in favour of...
Dr. Vimala Vs. M/S. Shriman Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC210
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.10.1995 made in E.A.No. 2899 of 1994 in E.P.No. 2373 of 1993 in A.R.C. No. 907 of 1991 by the Court of IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The petitioner has filed E.A.No. 2899 of 1994 in the lower Court under Section 47; CPC with averments (i) that the Chit Funds Act does not provide for any arbitration in respect of a claim by the Foreman against the surely; (ii) that the arbitrator has no power to order substituted service for service of notice and the award passed against the petitioner is a nullity; (iii) that the arbitrator has no authority to grant interest in the manner set out in the award; and (iv) that the arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act and hence the award passed against the petitioner is a nullity and inexecutable against her. With the above grounds, the petitioner in the Execution Petition would pray with the lower cour...
T. Senthil Vs. the Executive Officer, Kasipalayam Town Panchayat (Spec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC331
ORDER1. Petitioner is a Councillor of the Kasipalayam Town Panchayat. He had been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Principal Sessions Judge in S.C.No. 36 of 1998 dated 5.4.1999. Consequently, the Secretary of the Town. Panchayat informed the petitioner that he has ceased to be a member and disqualified to continue as member under Sections49, 50(1) (a) and 50(3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Petitioner filed an application before the Principal District Judge under Section 51 of the Act praying to declare the disqualification made by the Panchayat as illegal. The learned Principal District Judge held that there is no doubt regarding the conviction and that Section 51 (1) of the Act will not apply to the petitioner. The correctness of this order is challenged in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to and made a fervent ...
State Bank Employees' Union (rep. by General Secretary) and Anr. Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ639Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The first-petitioner is a registered trade Union, while the second petitioner claims to be one of the affected 321 workmen for whose benefit, the writ petition has been filed.2. The petitioners prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give preference to the 321 employees whose names are set out in the typed set of papers for appointment to the post of sweeper, watchman, water woman and the like and not to engage new hands till then.3. Heard Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Row and Reddy and Sri S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.4. Initially notice of motion was ordered by this Court on March 24, 1999. Subsequently, on July 7, 1999, rule nisi was issued. With the consent of the counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing even though service on the second respondent was: not complete. As no relief has been sought for against the s...
Seshmal JaIn and ors. Vs. Changamlal Umesh Chandu Bavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ614
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revision petitions are filed by the landlord.2. Material facts, which necessitated filing of these revision petitions could be summarised thus:Landlords filed three petitions for fixation of fair rent against three tenants as R.C.O.P. Nos.2461 of 1990, 2462 of 1990 and 2464 of 1990. The subject matter of the petitions are portions of the same building.3. The property which are subject matter of these revision petitions originally belonged to Amba Shankar Josha Family Trust. The trust was created for the benefit of family members and for charitable purposes. The trust has found difficulties to carry out the purpose of the Trust for paucity of funds and they moved before this Court for modification of the terms of Trust so as to empower them to sell the immovable properties of Trust.4. By order dated 28.11.1983, this Court granted such power subject to the condition that the sale could be executed only with the permission of this Court and it should ha...
S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar and Another Vs. TuticorIn Small Scale Salt Manuf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC23; (2000)1MLJ370
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Tuticorin in E.A.No.1222 of 1991 in E.P.No.59 of 1989. The said applications came to be filed in O.S.No.61 of 1984.2. In the E.P. filed by the decree holders, viz E. P.No.59 of 1989, the petitioners/judgment-debtors while praying for setting aside the sale, in E.A.No.1222 of 1991 had prayed for dispensing with furnishing of the security in terms of the Proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 of Civil Procedure Code. The Execution Court, by its impugned order dated 1.10.1992 rejected the said petition and dismissed the same on the ground that the judgment debtors have not filed necessary security deposit in terms of Order 21, Rule 90 of C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the judgment-debtors have filed the above revision petition.3. In this revision, the judgment-debtors petitioners have questioned the validity of the Madras Amendment to Order 21, Rule 90 of C.P.C. It is also contended that the con...
Murugeswari and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1138
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J. 1. These three petitions are filed by the accused/petitioners in C.C. Nos. 475/ 99, 474/99 and 476/99 respectively on the file of the Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Madurai, Under Section 439, Cr. P. C. for their release on bail.2. On 3-5-99, on prior intimation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudalur, at about 6.00 a.m. saw the accused at Mamundi Lane, Kottaisamy St., Gudalur, that after observing the conditions as per the provisions of law, seized 20 kgs. of ganja from a gunny bag which was in the possession of Selvi, 18 kgs. of ganja from the gunny bag in the possession of Murugeshwari and 18 kgs. of ganja from the gunny bag in the possession of Karupayee, that arrested the accused , and after investigation has filed charge sheet against each one of them.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three major questions on the basis of the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985, to satisfy Sec. 37(l)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act for the release of each one of these petitioners.4....
Pappu and ors. Vs. A. Thirunavukkarasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC375; 2001ACJ1674
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. On 1.10.1991 at about 9.45 a.m., the deceased Chitra was riding on her bicycle along with one Selvamani seated on the carrier of the bicycle towards north on the western side of the Trichy-Namakkal Road near Bharathipuram. At that point of time, Ambassador car bearing registration No. TDO 1269, proceeding from south in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle. As a result of the impact, Chitra died and Selvamani sustained serious injuries.2. Pappu, the mother of the deceased Chitra along with her two minor sons, the brothers of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation in M.C.O.P. No. 18 of 1992.3. Rajendran alias Murugesan, the husband of the deceased Chitra also filed a petition in M.C.O.P. No. 218 of 1992 claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for the death of his wife in the accident.4. Selvamani, the injured filed application in M.C.O.P. No. 923 of 1993 seeking for the compensation ...
Sumitomo Corporation Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad296
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27-9-1990 and their letter dated 1-12-1990, the petitioner-corporation has filed the above writ petition to quash those proceedings/letter and forbearing the respondents from levying any entry tax on the petitioner in respect of cars bearing Registration Nos. TN-01-B-0843 and TN-01-B-0344 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: petitioner-Corporation is a company incorporated under the law of Japan and has its Head Office at Tokyo in Japan. It has regional offices in India and one such regional office is at Madras. For the purpose of its own use, it purchased two Japanese cars, both are MAZDA 929 four door station Waggon 2000 CC. cars. The cars were purchased in Japan and were imported to India. A customs clearance permit was issued by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Export...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)91; [2000]242ITR170(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel contends that the question raised in this appeal, though one which has already been answered by this court against the Revenue in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1998]229ITR285(Mad) , should nevertheless be considered once again, as an appeal against that judgment preferred by the Revenue is pending before the Supreme Court. We are unable to agree. This court having considered the question in all its aspects and having come to a definite conclusion that the question is one which must be answered against the Revenue, the mere pendency of the appeal against the judgment does not render the judgment already delivered by this court ineffective. Section 260A(5) of the Income-tax Act provides that the High Court shall decide the question of law formulated under Sub-section (1) and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it thinks fit. This provision clearly requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›