Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1989
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
Decided on : Oct-20-1989
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ4
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. These second appeals and the civil revision petition have come before us on a reference made by Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) by his judgment dt. 8-9-1980 made in Second Appeal Nos. 1461 to 11466 of 1980. As the point of law involved in the other matters is also same, they are also posted along with the said second appeals.2. One Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam, represented by its President, Dhandapani filed the suit in O.S. Nos. 133 of 1978, 135 of 1978, 137 of 1978, 139 of 1978/141 of 1978, 143 of 1978 and 145 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Vellore for eviction of the defendants from the respective suit properties on the ground that they are the tenants under plaintiff Sangam. It is relevant to point out at the outset that the said suits are filed after the petitions filed before the learned Rent Controller, Vellore were dismissed on the ground that the properties in question are vacant sites and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Mad231
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9-11-1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No. 18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988, Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petition would lie only before that Court, the mailer was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Courts jurisdiction in the matter has been p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-30-1989
Reported in : (1989)29ITD597(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a company under liquidation. The assessee-oompany is being assessed through the Official Liquidator. The relevant accounting year ended on 30-6-1981. The original assessment was completed on 31-12-1982. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened. The Official Liquidator had executed conveyance on 12-3-1981 for transfer of the fixed assets in pursuance of the order of the High Court. The assets were transferred for Rs. 45 lakhs. The consideration for transfer in respect of land and building was Rs. 10,10,000, while the consideration for transfer in respect of plant and machinery was Rs. 34,90,000, making in at Rs. 45 lakhs. The conveyance was lodged for registration on 24-3-1981.3. The business of the assessee-company had discontinued in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. The business loss of the assessment year 1968-69 was Rs. 1,51,987. Thereafter the company was under liquidation. On account of the sale of the assets in the accounting year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-01-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Bom163; 1989(3)BomCR491
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiffs in R. A. Suit No. 502/1589 of 1981, pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, impugn the validity of the Order dated 27th March, 1984, made by the Court of Small Causes in Misc. Notice No. 532 of 1983, whereby the learned Judge set aside the ex parte decree of eviction made on 3rd March, 1982.2. The only question urged in this petition is whether the service of the writ of summons on the Defendants is valid. The question arises in these circumstances :The Defendants -- State Bank of India -- are the Plaintiffs' tenant of two flats on the 1st floor at 235/237, 'Reman Smruti', Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay-400004. The Plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction on grounds available under the Bombay Rent Act. The writ of summons was despatched by registered post, acknowledgement due, at this address :'State Bank of India, Central Office, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Bombay-400021...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-21-1989
Massachusetts v. Oakes - 491 U.S. 576 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576 (1989) Massachusetts v. Oakes No. 87-1651 Argued January 17, 1989 Decided June 21, 1989 491 U.S. 576 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus In 1984, respondent Oakes took color photographs of his partially nude and physically mature 14-year-old stepdaughter, L.S. He was indicted, tried, and convicted of violating a Massachusetts statute ( 29A) prohibiting adults from posing or exhibiting minors "in a state of nudity" for purposes of visual representation or reproduction in any publication, motion picture, photograph, or picture. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction. After holding that Oakes' posing of L.S. was speech for First Amendment purposes, the court struck down the statute as substantially overbroad under the First Amendment without addressing whether 29A could be constitutionally applied to Oakes. It concluded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-11-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - 488 U.S. 469 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. No. 87-998 Argued October 5, 1988 Decided January 23, 1989 488 U.S. 469 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellant city adopted a Minority Business Utilization Plan (Plan) requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more "Minority Business Enterprises" (MBE's), which the Plan defined to include a business from anywhere in the country at least 51% of which is owned and controlled by black, Spanish-speaking, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut citizens. Although the Plan declared that it was "remedial" in nature, it was adopted after a public hearing at which no direct evidence was presented that the city had discriminated on the basis of race in letting contracts, or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-1989
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC518Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise out of a common order-in-original and they relate to common issues. These have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case as slated in the impugned order arc, in brief, as follows: (i) On the basis of information that the import of goods covered by 10 bills of entry of the following firms as detailed below were in violation of Import Trade Control regulations and the goods were misdeclared regarding value, quantity and description thereof, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras recovered triplicate copies of 10 bills of entry from M/s. Nirmal Sea Freight Pvt. Ltd., Madras Custom House Agents on 18.3.1986: (i). M/s. Alconic International Merchandise, H-328, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. (iii). M/s. Shivam Electronics, 69-04, Nabikarim, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, (iv). M/s. Monica Enterprises, Blk Nil-36-B, First Floor, Malvia Nagar, New Delhi-110012. (v). M/s. Cosmopolitan Electron...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-18-1989
Reported in : 1990LC382(Calcutta),1989(43)ELT11(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji. J.1. The present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. Ltd., praying, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the notice to show cause dated 16-3-1982 and all proceedings relating thereto and not to levy and/or demand any Central Excise duty from the petitioner on the making of polythene films by the manufacturers out of granules supplied by the petitioner and for other consequential reliefs by way of retaining the respondents from giving any effect to and/or taking step whatsoever pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance of the said notice to show cause and the proceeding relating thereto and/or from levying and/or demanding any duty from the petitioner.2. It is stated that the petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in jute products. It is further stated that one of the items of jute manufactures manufactured by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!