Chennai Court January 1989 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.
Dow Limited, Represented by Senior Vice President, M.A. Ramaswamy Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ397
ORDERBhakthavatsalam, J.1. Notice of motion has been ordered by Sivasubramaniam.J. on 8.9.1988. When the writ miscellaneous petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, after admitting the writ petition.2. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the respondent of the impugned order in C. No. V/14G/15/14/82-CX3 dated 10.6.1988 and after quashing the same to direct the respondent to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make representations on merits.3. W.M.P. No. 17538 of 1988 is filed to amend the prayer as follows:to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or other appropriate writ order or direction, to call for the records of the respondent in No. 31/88, issued in C. No. V/14G/14/82 CX-3 dated 10.6.1988 and quash the same and direct that the petitioner be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations on merits and adjudication taken ...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. V.K. Sundaravali and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC141
Padmini Jesudurari, J. 1. The insurance company against which the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an Award has filed the present appeal contending that deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident and the Tribunal erred in holding him to be passenger and consequently placing the entire liability on the insurance company.2. Facts briefly are : On 3.5.1980 the deceased V.K. Krishnan, who is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 and 3 was travelling in a* bus bearing Registration No, TM Y1029 belonging to the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant. When the bus stopped at Srinivasanagar bus stop, the deceased who was to get down on that bus stop, was descending down the steps. Before he could rest his foot on the ground, the driver of the bus moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; as a result of which the deceased was thrown out and sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed later in the hospital. Res...
P.V. Gajapathi Raju Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)139; [1989]176ITR238(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is an individual and was carrying on business as a financier advancing mones in respect of hire-purchase transactions. In respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, he claimed net losses of Rs. 93,579 and 51,063, respectively. Scrutinising the accounts submitted by the assessee did not make any fresh advance and no hire-purchase transaction were also entered into in the relevant years. The Income-tax Officer also found that during the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee had almost stopped his business and was merely engaged in realising the outstandings due from his customers and also interest due from them. Inasmuch as the position continued to be the same for the assessment years in question, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the loss arising in the provcess of winding up should be appropriately dealt with under the head 'Other sources' and he disallowed sums of Rs. 38,329 and Rs. 12,158. Amongst the items so disallowed, there were amount...
Gnanasundaram and anr. Vs. Murugesa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad343
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful objectors before the lower appellate Court. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows :-- One Pachiammal sold the property which is the subject matter of this second appeal on 2-11-1967 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for Rs. 7000. At the time of the sale, there was litigation pending in O.S. 523 of 1962 under which Pachiammal filed the suit against one Veerappa Asari and Nataraja Asari (father of the appellant) for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said proceeding ended in compromise in S.A. 1175 of 1966 on 25-6-1970 between Pachiammal and the appellants' father and brother. As per the said compromise deed, Pachiammal's title was declared in respect of the said property. According to the respondent-plaintiff, by virtue of the sale deed dt 2-11-1967, executed by Pachiammal, he is entitled to the property . and his title was affirmed by the co...
V. Muthuswamy and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ224
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners have been allotted various residential houses in Subedar Garden Scheme by the respondent. It is not disputed that they have been paying rent regularly to the respondent. It seems on 14-10-1983 the respondent has issued the impugned notice to the petitioners to remove the encroachment in the respective buildings failing which allotment will be cancelled and the alleged encroachment will be removed. Aggrieved by this order petitioners have come before this Court praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14-10-1988.2. Notice of motion was ordered by Sivasubramaniam, J., on 9-11-1988.3. Writ petition is admitted.4. The Respondent-Board has filed a counter affidavit.5. By consent of parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice has been issued without following the provisions of the Tamilnadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) A...
N. Arivudai Nambi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad240
1. The earlier appeal is by the Plaintiff Arivudal Nambi and the latter is by the State Govt. Both the appeals arise as aresult of s common judgment delivered by the first appellate Court, namely learned Additinal District Judge, Coimbatore under the following circumstances :2. The plaintiff is a resident of Mettupalayam owning lands to the extent of 11 acres, namely six acres comprised in S. F. No. 814 and five acres in S. F. No. 815/1 at Thekkampatty Village two Kilo metres from Mettupalayam. They are dry lands and he has got two wells installed with electric motors each with 7.5 H. P. The lands are situate on the southern banks of river Bhavani, more fully described in the plan marked as Ex. B. 4, filed by the Government. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to lift water from the river at a point numbered as (2) in the plan Ex. B. 4 for the purpose of irrigating the lands stated above as a riparian owner.3. It transpires that when the water in the river rece...
N. Arivudai Nambi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ524
S.T. Ramalingam, J.1. The earlier appeal is by the plaintiff Arivudai Nambi and the latter is by the State Government. Both the appeals arise as a result of a common judgment delivered by the first appellate Court, namely, learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff is a resident of Mettupalayam owning lands to the extent of 11 acres, namely, six acres comprised in S.F.No.814 and five acres in S.F.No.815/1 at Thekkampatty Village, two kilo meters from Mettupalayam. They are dry lands and he has got two wells installed with electric motors each with 7.5. H.P. The lands are situate on the southern banks of river Bhavani, more fully described in the plan, marked as Ex.B.4, filed by the Government. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to lift water from the river at a point numbered as (2) in the plan Ex.B.4 for the purpose of irrigating the lands stated above as a riparian owner.3. It transpires that when the wat...
M/S. V.K.R.K. Govindaraja Mudaliar and Co. Vs. A.K. Mohanasundaram and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad206
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No. 113, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. The respondents 1 to 3 are the owners of the petition premises and they are minors represented by their father and guardian A. Kanniappa Chettiar. The petition premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The owners of the petition premises filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1982 for eviction of the tenant (a) on the ground of owner's occupation under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(b) on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act and(c) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under S. 10(2)(i) of the said Act. On the side of the owners of the premises, Exts. A1 to A12 were filed. On the side of the tenant Exts. B1 to B10 were filed- On behalf of the Court. Exts, C1 and C2 were marked. On the side of the owners of the premises A. Kanniappa Chettiar was examined as a witness. On the side...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)122; [1989]177ITR145(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in considering the case on merits when it has set aside the assessment appeal for ascertaining the correct facts regarding the addition on which penalty was levied ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and a partner in the firm of Chinnikrishna Chetty. Besides his share income from business, he derived income from properties as well as from other sources. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, he returned an income of Rs. 42,396 and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 64,960. In so doing, the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 31,193 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The amount so added represented th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Polo and Riders Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR133(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee in these tax references is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and formed with the object of promoting and popularising the sport of polo and horse-riding and encouraging horse-breeding as well. Under the rules of the society, the assessee is prohibited from paying any dividends or share of profits to any of its members and in the event of its winding up, its surplus funds or assets are to be handed over to another institution. Before the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66 became due on June 30, 1965, on June 14, 1965, the assessee filed a petition for securing the approval of the Government of India under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 (in relation to the assessee's previous years ended on June 30, 1964 and June 30, 1965) the assessee returned Rs. 41,175 and Rs. 1,58,398 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »