Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad122; (1984)1MLJ324
ORDER1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 207 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which is directed against the finding recorded by the Court below on the preliminary issue regarding limitation. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,860 with subsequent interest on the basis of a simple mortgage for Rs. 5000 executed by the petitioner on 21-5-1969 agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum.. The suit was instituted on 28-6-1982. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, she raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.. On that plea so raised by the petitioner. an issue was framed regarding the bar of limitation and that issue was tried by the Court below as a preliminary issue. The Court below took the view that as the provisions of French Code Civil would cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1966]18STC60(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners are a partnership-firm carrying on business in hides and skins. It is common ground that during 1957-58 and 1958-59, the years of assessments dealt with in these petitions, they had a turnover in raw hides and skins assessable on the purchases under Rule 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) s then in force. These writ petitions have come before us on a reference by one of us sitting singly, because in all these petitions the vires of certain provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the s framed thereunder has been raised for consideration.2. For the turnover in 1957-58, the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore North, issued a notice to the petitioners for the purpose of assessing them to sales tax on 19th December, 1957, and this was followed by another notice dated 26th December, 1957. Writ Petition No. 15 of 1958 was filed by the petitioners for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad286
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The questions in all these matters referred to this Full Bench are : --(i) Whether the definition of 'debtor' in Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972,50 of 1982 and 13 of 1980 would include his heirs, legal representatives and assigns? and (ii) are not the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of a debtor governed by Mohammedan law entitled to claim the benefits under the Acts.2. The facts which lead to this Reference in all these cases can be briefly, stated as follows : We find from the order of reference in all these cases that a Division Bench of this Court in Komalambal v. Neelavaihi Ammal ((987) 100 MLW 1059 held that the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor are not entitled to claim the benefits of the TamiI Nadu Act 13 of 1980. It was contended that in the said Division Bench case, except three Judgments of learned single Judges in Lakshmiammal v. Sundaramurthi : (1984)2MLJ47 , Sara Nisha v. Raju : (1984)2MLJ152 and Pattammal v. Ponnusami Udayar (198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1997Mad312
1. Defendant-State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector. Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff, respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 200 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai, for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit treasure, namely, 360 one Rupee coins of Queen victoria era., and for costs of the suit.2. Material averments in the plaint are as follows :--360 One rupee coins of the era of Queen Victoria were found by the first plaintiff on 15-12-75, right in the middle of the ancestral family house, which belonged in comon to him and his senior paternal uncle's grandson, 2nd plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the said property. The plaintiffs, would say that they and their ancestors had been very ancient residents of the village of Inam Pudur in Manapparai Taluk. They had their very ancient ancestral house in the village natham in S.F. No. 74. The plaintiffs have s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :25. 03-2013 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.7424 of 2013 And M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 V.Srinivasan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2. 2.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2. 3.The Secretary, TANTRANSCO, Chennai-2. 4.The Chairman cum Director, TANTRANSCO, Chennai-2. .. Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to Memorandum (Per) No.35421/A18/A181/2012-I dated 19.6.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an Office Memorandum issued by the Secretariat Branch of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, clarify...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad317; [1959]10STC171(Mad)
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. At the date relevant to these petitions Article 286(3) of the Constitution ran:'(3) No law made by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of a fax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent.' By virtue of the power thus vested in Parliament was enacted the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale Or Purchase) Act 1952 (Act 52 of 1952). The preamble to the Act stated that it was an Act to declare in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution, certain goods to be essential for the life of the community. The operative part of this enactment was Section 3 which ran: '3. No law made after the commencement of this Act by the legislature of a State imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1960)1MLJ27
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. At the date relevant to these petitions Article 286(3) of the Constitution ran:(3) No law made by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent.By virtue of the power thus vested in Parliament, was enacted the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1958 (LII of 1952). The Preamble to the Act stated that it was an Act to declare in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution, certain goods to be essential for the life of the community. The operative part of this enactment was Section 3 which ran:3. No law made after the commencement of this Act by the Legislature of a State imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(61)ECC50
ORDERN.V. Balasubramaniam, J.1. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner is an importer of various goods including drugs as per the Imports and Exports Control Act, 947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Imports and Exports Control, Act') and Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Imports Control Order'). An additional licence dated 24.6.1981 was issued in favour of one M/s. Abad Fisheries for the import of certain items specified therein in accordance with the import policy for 1980-81. An additional licence dated 16.7.1981 was issued in favour of M/s. Gujarat State Export Corporation for the import of items specified in accordance with the import policy, 1980-81. A subsidiary additional licence dated 23.9.1981 was issued in favour of M/s. Abad Fisheries for the import of items specified therein in accordance with the import policy 1980-81. Under the Import policy, 1980-81, Amoxycillin Trihydrate could be imported under the open general licence. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1962)2MLJ464
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. I have already perused the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother Venkataraman, J., and, although I entirely agree in the conclusions he has reached, I would like to add a few words of my own on the questions of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, counsel for the appellant.2. Three main contentions were urged by him The first related to the applicability of Section 14.(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to this case. It consisted of two parts, the first part factual and the other part legal. The factual part consisted in the argument that the possession of the estate by the second defendant amounted to alienation of the properties by the widows and consequently the widows should be held to be not in possession of the estate when alone the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act would be attracted. That argument has been dealt with fully by my learned brother and I do not propose to add anything more to what he has said. I agree with him that ...
Tag this Judgment!