Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1966Mad266
(1) I have had the advantage of perusal of the judgment of my learned brother, in which he has dealt elaborately and fully with the main issues of fact that arise for our determination in these appeals. I am in entire agreement with his conclusions; that being the case, I felt somewhat hesitant to write a separate, concurring judgment. That hesitancy was reinforced by the consciousness that, though the case does involve the application of several principles of Hindu law, to the facts, those principles themselves are well settled, and enunciated in decisions that are now classic. Nor does the application of the principles to the facts of the case involve any novel departure in any respect. Nevertheless, I propose, in a brief compass, to survey the principles of Hindu law, that impinge on the facts and circumstances of this case. There are at least one or two refinements that render this expedient. I must make it clear, however, that I am not traversing the facts and evidence again, ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas20(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment in C.S. No. 322 of 1975 and Company Petition No. 94 of 1976. The plaintiffs in the suit and the petitioner in the company petition are the appellants. The first appellant, V. M. Rao, is the elder son of late V. Ramakrishna, I.C.S. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter, respectively, of the first appellant. The first respondent, Rajeswari Ramakrishnan, is the elder sister and V. L. Dutt, the fifth respondent, is the younger brother of the first appellant. The third respondent, P. R. Ramakrishnan, is the husband of Rajeswari Ramakrishnan and respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are two of their sons. The sixth respondent is V. Ramakrishna Sons Ltd. which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the company.' 2. The company was incorporated under the Companies Act and a certificate of incorporation was granted on July 7, 1949. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad484
Ramaswami, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of our learned brother Basheer Ahmad Sayeed, J. in C. C. C. Appeal No. 54 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge of Madras in O. S. No. 1568 of 1950.(2) The facts arising for consideration lie within a brief compass and have been established beyond doubt. The plaintiff Maheswari is the wife of the deceased Palanivel Nadar. Palanivel Nadar has a brother-in-law by name C. M. Thyagarajan. This Thyagarajan was the agent of the defendant insurance company, the All India General Insurance Company Limited. Palanival Nadar, as appears from the evidence, was a heavy drinker and afflicted with syphilis. On 2-1-1948 the deceased Palanivel Nadar took out a life assurance policy bearing No. 11096 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Palanivel Nadar died on 13-6-1948 surviving him the plaintiff Maheswari and two minor children. The claim of Maheswari was disputed by the defendant company.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Letter No.29369/H1/2010-9 dated 19.10.2011 issued by the 1st respondent State Government and the consequent Notification No.3/2011 dated 11.11.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent State Consumer Commission, quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to appoint forthwith the petitioner as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in any of the existing vacancies as per the recommendation of the High Level Selection Committee dated 12.05.2011.ORDER1. Seeking to quash the impugned Letter No.29369/H1/2010-9 dated 19.10.2011 issued by the 1st respondent State Government and the consequent Notification No.3/2011 dated 11.11.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent State Consumer Commission and for a further direction to the respondents to appoint him as the President of the District Consumer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay to the petitioners, the terminal benefits arising on account of the death of their father.O R D E R1. Daughters of a Sub Divisional Engineer, Transmission Unit, Office of the Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Chennai, claiming themselves as legal heirs, entitled to the terminal benefits, on account of the death of their father, have sought for a Mandamus, directing to the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the same. The 4th respondent is the brother of the deceased, in whose favour, the nomination has been made, by the employee.2. According to the petitioners/daughters, their father expired on 31.03.2002, in harness. The marriage between their parents was dissolved by a decree of divorce in 1989. As per the Hindu Succession Act, they are the Class-I heirs and that even if there was any dissolution of marriage between the parents, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]239ITR269(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. These two references relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 raise a common question of law.2. The assessee, Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, it is said, had been purchasing newsprints for the purpose of printing and circulating newspapers to the public. The assessments for the relevant assessment years1973-74 and 1974-75 had been completed originally. Subsequently, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1975-76, it was found that the wastage claimed by the assessee was excessive. In the course of survey operations under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), a stock book (RG 16 register) maintained was taken. This register, it is said, was maintained to comply with the Central Excise Regulations. It showed that the real wastage recorded was far less than 5 per cent.3. Information was also received from the Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, (the ITO), which revealed that in the case of another newspaper, Dina Mal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1992(38)ECC325; 1991(56)ELT705(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ43
ORDERMishra, J.1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, is directed against the judgment of Kanakaraj, J., in W.P.No. 3880 of 1991. The petitioner/appellant is the company engaged in importing of stainless steel melting scrap. It has got L-4 licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for manufacturing ingots after melting such imported stainless scrap. In or about February, 1991, according to the petitioner/appellant, its Managing Director contacted one Ashinkumar Kamdar, who was known as Indentor as well as Import Consultant in field of iron and steel and other allied products, and informed him that the petitioner/appellant company would like to import stainless steel scrap at a competitive price. Kamdar suggested to import such scrap materials and also promised to help in securing materials. Thereupon, Kamdar floated enquiries and procured an officer from an exporter of Singapore by name K. Ramanlal & Co., Private Limited. Accordingly, it is said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ662
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The validity of The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, is the subject matter of challenge in these batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by association or by corporate sectors, as the case may be.2. At the outset it has to be pointed out that no one has challenged the constitutional vires of the Act, but the challenges are on the periphery. Innumerable contentions were advanced by various learned senior counsel and they will all be considered one by one.3. The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as The Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is an Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The preamble to the Act reads thus :-'An Act to consolidate and rationalise laws relating to the levy of taxes on consumption or sale of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu.'4. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 17.5.03 and was published on 19.5.03 in the Gazette. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ348
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioners herein are the respondents in Execution Petition No. 90 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry. 2. Before the lower Court, the respondents/petitioners in the Execution Petition No. 90 of 2002 have prayed for the relief:(i) to grant leave to them to execute the French Grosse Copy of the Usufructuary Gift Deed dated 25/04/34 as a Deemed Decree;(ii) to grant leave to execute the Deemed Decree (Section 146 C.P.C.);(iii) to deliver to the civil revision petitioners/respondents vacant and actual possession of the E.P. Schedule Mentioned Property by ejecting the respondents, bound by the decree, and if necessary by removing the person/persons bound by the said decree and further if necessary by breaking open the locks, if any, put up by the Respondents/Obstructors or person/persons, bound by the said decree, in accordance with Order XXI Rule 35(1) & (3) of the C.P.C.3. In the counter filed to the E.P. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1475; 2004(2)CTC10
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of H.C.P. Nos.1038, 1111, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 as common question of law and also the facts are involved therein. Common arguments were also laid. While H.C.P. Nos.1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 have been argued by Shri B. Kumar, learned senior counsel, Shri P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel argued H.C.P. Nos.1038 and 1121 of 2003. 2. All the petitions are in the nature of habeas corpus petitions and seeking the liberty of the petitioners from the Special Camp, Chengalpattu, wherein they are lodged being Sri Lankan refugees and treating them as foreigners under Sec. 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act. In all the writ petitions, the orders, putting them in the Special Camp, passed by the respondent State Government, are also challenged. 3. All these writ petitioners are the citizens of Sri Lanka and they came to India. There has been a constant influx of Sri Lankan...
Tag this Judgment!