Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: constitution of india article 139 conferment on the supreme court of powers to issue certain writs Sorted by: old Court: chennai Page 2 of about 160 results (0.245 seconds)

Oct 26 2016 (HC)

Advocates' Forum for Social Justice rep. by its President, Mr. K. Balu ...

Court : Chennai

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order made in Lr.No.4331/Regr/ACAD/A3/2014, dated 28.1.2015 issued by the second respondent, to quash the same and forbear the first respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to process its affiliation through the second respondent to commence the law course in Saraswathi ...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2016 (HC)

S. Sevugan Chettiar Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ch ...

Court : Chennai

1. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the ICICI Bank and is presently aged 68 years. He is constrained to approach this Court in terms of the proceedings dated 4.8.2016 issued by the third respondent. 3. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, upon retirement, filed his return of income for the relevant year and the assessment was finalized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Palaniappan v. I.T.O. [Civil Appeal No. 4411 of 2010 dated 28.9.2015] held that a person, who has opted for voluntary retirement under the Early Retirement Option Scheme shall be entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Following the said decision, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated 1...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1953 (HC)

Kandiyil Vania Pudukudi Ramunni Kurup and ors. Vs. Panchayat Board, Ba ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1954Mad754; (1954)IIMLJ101

1. These are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and raise the question whether the notification, G. O. No. 139 (L. A.) issued by the Government of Madras on 31-1-1952 is valid. That notification is as follows:"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 81, Sub-section (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act 10 of 1950) His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby appoints the Official year 1952-53 as the year after the 'commencement of which, no person shall continue to keep open a private market in any panchayat area within the jurisdiction of a panchayat."The petitioners are owners of private markets in the districts of Malabar, North Arcot, Nellore, Tiru-chirapalli and Visakhapatnam. Some of these markets are stated to have been in existence for more than a century. All of them had been run under annual licences granted under the Madras Local Boards Act, 14 of 1920. The petitioners allege that when they applied for renewal of licenc...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1954 (HC)

Abdul Hameed Sait and anr. Vs. the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and o ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1954Mad961; (1954)IIMLJ416

1. This is an appeal preferred in the pauper form against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund in O. S. No. 17 of 1946.2. The facts are : In 1928 the second defendant Mohamed Elias Sait entered into a partition arrangement with four other descendants of one Hajee Abdul Rahiman and the registration copy of the partition deed is Ex. P. 2. This partition deed mentions three earlier family arrangements of the years 1918, 1919 and 1921. In this partition of 1928 items 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 of the plaint schedule were got allotted to the share of the second defendant. This second defendant subsequently acquired items 1 and 8 from his brother Hajee Mohammad Ibrahim Sait.3. On 5-12-1929 the second defendant executed a mortgage deed hypothecating items 1 to 9 in favour of the first defendant company, the Provident Investment Co., Ltd., Bombay, and borrowed Rs. 1,50,000. This mortgage was executed and registered in Bombay. The registration copy of the mortgage deed...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1955 (HC)

E.K. Pattabhi Rama Reddi and anr. Vs. E.K. Govinda Reddi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1956Mad72; (1956)1MLJ82

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Venkatatama Aiyar, J., in a petition C.M.P. No. 6745 of 1951 to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The learned Judge allowed the application and granted the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the main contesting respondents before the learned Judge, have preferred this appeal.2. The question in issue in the present appeal is whether the village of Ekkattu Thangal in Chingleput District is or is not an 'inam estate' which could be taken over by Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) and incidentally a further question whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal which held the village to be such an 'estate'.3. Before dealing with the merits concerning the two points above-mentioned, it would be convenient to narrate the proceedings that took place before the...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1955 (HC)

C. Duraiswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. the United India Life Assurance Co. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1956Mad316; (1956)1MLJ344

Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, whose suit against the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd., as the first defendant and its directors, defendants 2 to 7, and the Official Trustee of Madras, defendant 8, was dismissed by the City Civil Judge. The plaintiffs prayed for two reliefs: (1) declaring that the first defendant-Company and its directors, defendants 2 to 7 are not entitled to invest the funds belonging to the policy-holders' trust-fund in the construction of any building in Mount Road, Madras and (2) restraining defendants 1 to 8 by a permanent injunction from applying, expending or appropriating any monies belonging to the policy-holder's trust-fund for the construction of any such building.2. The first defendant-Company is a limited liability Company, incorporated about the year 1906, for the purpose of carrying on the business of life insurance. About 1927, the subscribed share capital of the Company was about Rs. 70,000; but most of ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1957 (HC)

C. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Ii Additional City a ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1957)2MLJ567

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against an order passed by this Court dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner. In that petition she prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Income-tax Officer, Second Additional City Circle, Madras, the Collector of Nilgiris district, and the Tahsildar of Coonor from proceeding to attach, or to bring to sale the petitioner's properties for the realisation of the alleged income-tax arrears of her husband, Tharani Singh Gramani, and in particular from proceeding with the sale of Benhutty Estate, in the Nilgiris district.2. The facts material for this petition may be briefly stated : For the recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner's husband a certificate was issued by the Income-Tax Officer to the Collector of Nilgiris under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. The Collector in pursuance of this certificate...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1958 (HC)

Blackwood and Sons Ltd. and ors. Vs. A.N. Parasuraman and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1959Mad410

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The relief sought in both these suits is the same, namely, injunction arising out of an alleged infringement of copyright with other ancillary reliefs such as damages, accounts etc. The two suits have been tried together because of certain questions of law which arise in them but as the farts are necessarily different they have to be set out separately.2. C. S. No. 54 of 1955 : The plaintiffs are Messrs. Macmillan and Co. Ltd. while the defendants are a firm of publishers carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of 'The Little Flower and Co.' Madras. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the copyright by assign-ment in respect of two works (1) The Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy, and (2) A collection of stories by Rabindranath Tagorc published under the style of 'Stories from Tagore'. The Return of the Native was prescribed by the University of Madras for the B. A. degree examination 1956, Part I English.The defendants published...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1959 (HC)

Shanmugha Oil Mill, Erode Vs. Coimbatore Market Committee and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1960Mad160

(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to forbear from enforcing its notice, S. No. 610 dated 11-7-1957, calling upon the petitioner to pay cess for the groundnuts purchased from 23-11-1955 to 30-6-1957, under S. 11(1) of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act 1933, Rule 28(1) of the Madras Commercial Crops Market Rules, 1948, and bylaw 23 of the Coimbatore Market Committee by-laws.(2) The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business at Erode in the name of the Shanmuga Oil Mill engaged in the purchase and sale of groundnuts. He has taken a licence for dealing in groundnuts under Ss. 5(1) and 5(3) of the Madras Commercial Crops Act (Madras Act XX of 1933), which I shall refer hereafter as the Act. The first respondent is the Coimbatore Market Committee constituted under S. 4-A of the Act. Coimbatore District is a notified area under the Act in respect of groundnuts and certain other commercial cro...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1960 (HC)

In Re: K.R.P.L. Chockalingam Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1960CriLJ1625

Ramaswami, J. 1. On a reference made by our 'learned brother Somasundaram, J. whether Ch. III of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903 continues to be applicable to this case of extradition from India to Ceylon, this Full Bench has been constituted by the learned Chief Justice. 2. The" facts leading to this reference are ; The petitioner Chockalingam Chettiar, a native of Kandavarayanpettai village, Tirupattur taluk in Ramanathapuram District was employed as an agent of "Chetty" by the Gonakelle, El Teb and Demmeria Estates. The practice is for the Superintendents of these Estates to draw cheques in favour of this Chockalingam Chettiar on the Imperial Bank of India and the Mercantile Bank of India at Colombo and Chockalingam Chettiai would cash those cheques and disburse the amounts to the labourers employed in the said estates who apparently are mostly Tamilians. Three such cheques were issued by the respective Superintendents of these three Estates Messrs. Dealker, Percy and Horn for a to...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //