Chennai Court November 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.G. Arumugham and ors. Vs. K.A. Chinnappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ192
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 187 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore (respondents 2 to 4 in I.A. N0. 1019 of 1987) have preferred this revision.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: The respondents-plaintiffs, preferred a suit in Q.S. No. 187 of 1980 originally for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and three others from causing any obstruction or interference or prejudice to the plaintiffs in dividing at their discretion the suit properties into portions as sites for construction of buildings and demarcating the boundaries of such sites with survey stones and laying out roads in the suit properties etc and from causing in any other manner any injury to any of the rights of the plaintiffs under the suit contract and also for restraining the defendants from selling or alienating the suit properties in any manner to any person other than the plaintiffs. ...
Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: [1990]183ITR41(Mad)
1. The assessee filed a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to refer the following questions of lawu : '(i) whether in computing the income chargeable to income-tax under the head'Profits and gains of business', the deduction to be made to exclude the agricultural portion of the appellant's income should be worked out in accordance with rule 7(2)(a) and not 7(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (ii) whether the assessee was not entitled to deduct the depreciation in respect of farm assets used by the assessee in its business ?' 2. In the assessee's own case, a similar case relating to an earlier year was decided against the assessee in CIT v. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 4 . Hence, this petition is rejected with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. ...
Rajammal Vs. Sriramulu Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ253
Ratnam, J.1. In this second appeal at the instance of the defendant in O.S. No. 24 of 1975, Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the lower appellate Court was right in negativing the claim of the appellant to the benefits under Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act XXXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,369 stated to be due from the appellant under a promissory note dated 7.2.1969 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The appellant, besides resisting the suit on the ground that the promissory note sued upon was not supported by consideration, claimed that she is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of the Act and as such, the entire debt should be deemed to have been discharged.2. The trial Court found that the promissory note was fully supported by consideration and that though the appellant had originally owned 7 ac...
Kuppabai and anr. Vs. V.M. Sachithanandham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ296
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 110 of 1983 in O.S. No. 145 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore.2. The respondents herein filed E.P. No. 110 of 1983 to execute the decree against the petitioners herein and some others, who were the judgment-debtors. During the pendency of the execution petition, the 3rd defendant Jeevarathana Mudaliar died, and thereafter, the present petitioners were impleaded as his legal representatives They were added as respondents 7 and 8 in the execution petition. They resisted the execution petition on the ground that neither the 3rd defendant nor his legal representatives are 'debtors' under the various Debt Laws, viz., Act 15 of 1976 and 16 of 1976, and therefore the said Acts will not apply to the present case. It was, therefore, contended that the execution petition filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law is clearly barred by time. The said objection wa...
V.R. Desappa Chettiar Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Superi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ373
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of twisted art silk yarn and for this purpose, he has installed two twisting machines, each operated by one H.P. electric motor. In 1955, the respondent gave two service connections to the appellant, viz., Service connection Nos. 106/4-A and 50/1-A. On 25.9.1974, the respondent placed a test meter near the distribution main line and this, according to the appellant, has lowered him in the estimation of the villagers, as the fixation of a test meter, is only for the purpose of detecting theft of electric energy. The appellant claimed that the respondent is not entitled to fix the test meter and in spite of protracted correspondences, the respondent did not remove the test meter and it was thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›