Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
Sengoda Gounder and ors. Vs. Komarasami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ29
K. Sampath, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1360 of 1988 arises out of O.S.No. 163 of 1985 and Second Appeal No. 1361 of 1988 arises out of O.S.No. 227 of 1985, both the suits on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sankari.2. Suit O.S.No. 163 of 1985 was for declaration that the plaintiffs therein were entitled to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. O.S.No. 227 of 1985 was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their men, servant, and agent from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of S.No. 31/1A by the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs, 1, 2, 4 to 6 in O.S.No. 163 of 1985 are the appellants in S.A.No. 1360 of 1985. They were defendants 2, 1, 4, 6 and 7 in O.S.No. 227 of 1985. The respondents in S.A.No. 1360 of 1985 were the defendants and the third plaintiff in O.S.No. 163 of 1985 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Vanam and Another Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police N.i.B., theni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC422; 2001(74)ECC316
ORDERl. The accused are the appellants. 2. According to the prosecution, on 18.12.1991, at about 10.30 am. a police party consisting of 18 members including PWs 1, 2 and 4, when they were patrolling in the place called Malayalakudisai, near Valliparai, found cultivation of ganja plants in an area of about 3 acres of land, at the instance of the accused, that under the instructions of PW-4, PW-2 was asked to take necessary further action, that when the police party surrounded the area, both the accused escaped from the spot, that since no independent witnesses were available, PW-1 and one other head Constable, by name Mani, were requested to act as witnesses, that thereafter, the Ganja plants were seized from that area which weighed about 3000 kilos and that thereafter after retaining one plant under MO-1, the remaining plants were destroyed on the instructions of PW.4. It is the case of the prosecution that subsequently, A-1 was arrested at 3 p.m. on 8.2.1993 by PW.4 near Valparai Bus ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2272
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused against the judgment and conviction passed by the Trial Court under Section 20(B)(1) read with Section 8(c) of NDPS Act in C.C.No. 199/94, convicting the appellant for 36 months imprisonment already undergone apart from imposing a fine of Rs. 36,000/-.2. According to the prosecution, PW. 2 along with his other Officers was on a General patrolling on 19-4-1994 around 16.45 hours in front of one Gemini Workshop on Arappalayam main Road, that the appellant was proceedings from West to East and crossed the main road by carrying a gunny bag on his head; that at that point of time when two other persons, Malaisamy and Ravi who were also proceeding from West to East, just in front of the appellant were requested by P.W. 2 to act as witnesses, they refused to accept his request; that thereafter the Sub-Inspector Natarajan and one constable Narayanan were called to witness the occurrence; that in the presence of those wi...
Tag this Judgment!Thankam and Another Vs. Sreekumar and Twenty Four Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ156
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay of 2352 days in preferring the appeal against the decree passed in O.S.No.122 of 1979 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as under: The petitioners were the defendants 22 and 23 in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition claiming one half share over the plaint items. In the suit, it was contended by the petitioners' father that the petitioners were necessary parties inasmuch as their mother, who was the 10th defendant in the suit had taken sale deeds in their names and that she was representing them as guardian. The petitioners were accordingly impleaded as defendants 22 and 23 in the suit. At that time, the petitioners were m...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamp Act) and Inspector Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC275; (2001)1MLJ655
ORDERJudgement pronounced by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla. J.1. This is a reference made by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The question that has been referred for considerationis'Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case the document dated 9.1.1978 (Document No.P.3/78) of the Sub-Registrars Office, Kottaram executed by the respondent in favour of his son Dr.D.Krishnamourthy styled as 'Release Deed' should be treated as a 'Settlement Deed' as defined under Section 2(24) of the Act attracting Stamp duty under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act' or is it only a release falling under Article 55 of the Schedule I ?'2. According to the first respondent, he was the manager of the undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and six of his sons, that after thedeath of his father in the year 1935, there was a demand fur partition by his sons in the year 1969, that there were eight items of properties which were partitioned during the summer va...
Tag this Judgment!Kulandaivelu K. Vs. Appellate Authority Under Tamil Nadu Shops and Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1686Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner by name K. Kulandaivelu, a resident of Kulithalai, Thiruchirappalli District, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief sought for setting aside the order passed by the first respondent, i.e., the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchy, by an order dated April 6, 1993, in T.N.S.E. Case No. 9 of 1992 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back-wages, continuity of service, seniority, etc. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file this writ petition and requested the Court to allow the writ petition. 3. On the other hand, the contesting respondent no doubt did not file any counter, but at the same time, argued the matter. The arguments of learned counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Velan Saw Mills (Represented by N. Mangalam Proprietrix) Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR1045]; (2000)IIILLJ48Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to C.P. No. 84 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, and to quash the order passed therein, dated April 29, 1993.2. In support of the writ petition the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein she has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced her to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra on behalf of the second respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against him one after the other and ultimately he has requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavi...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Balasundaram and anr. Vs. Narayanasamy (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ162
K. Sampath, J.1. The second appeal arises out of O.S.No. 323 of 1987 filed by one Narayanasamy the first respondent herein, before the District Munsif, Villupuram, for permanent injunction against the appellants herein. The first respondent having died pending the second appeal, his wife has been brought on record as the second respondent herein.2. The plaintiff's case was as follows:The suit properties in five different survey numbers of a total extent of 2.97 acres were being cultivated by him by his own physical labour. His father was cultivating the properties along with him till the father died in the year 1978. The annual lease was 20 bags of paddy for the first crop and 10 bags of paddy for the second crop in a year if the lands were cultivated for the second crop also. His grandfather was also cultivating the suit properties as a cultivating tenant from the then owners of the suit properties. For more than 50 years the suit properties were being cultivated by the plaintiff's fa...
Tag this Judgment!S. Periasamy Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC365
ORDER1. LIQUOR RUINS COUNTRY, FAMILY AND LIFE. Such are the evils of drinking. It is, therefore, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was enacted to prohibit the manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicants. Not only the consumption of intoxicants, but also deriving income and revenue from the same, is a sin, as considered by Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our nation. But by revised policy decisions, the State proposed to augment public revenue by lifting the prohibition and adding the provisions in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for granting licence for manufacture of intoxicants and for sale of the same in wholesale and retail, of course, by imposing a condition that no sale of liquor shall be made under the licence on Gandhi Jayanthi day, paying a tribute to our Mahatma. Are these not paradoxical?2. Section 17-C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') enables the State Government to grant the exclusive privilege or other privilege to any ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Padmapriya Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR137(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way proceeding by way of sate of the properties referred to in the notice dated January 5, 1996, under reference No. S.1-23/Cuddalore, issued by the first respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. He had income from a lodge known as 'Hotel Brin-davan' and a cinema theatre known as 'New Cinema Theatre' both at Cuddalore. He was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1976-77 and thereafter. It is stated that on receipt of the notice impugned, the peti-tioner made enquiry with the officials, and she carne to know that her father was liable to pay income-tax arrears of a sum of Rs. 67,575 with interest for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84. The petitioner is challenging the notice on the ground that her father was assessed to income-tax ex parte for the assessment year 1976-77 and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »