Chennai Court December 1992 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.
Security and Detective Bureau Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Mad)329
ORDERT. N. C. RANGARAJAN, VICE PRESIDENT :In this case, the assessee had applied for stay of recovery of disputed tax. The practice of the Tribunal is to see that the assessee exhausts the administrative remedies before approaching the Tribunal for stay. This is to ensure that the Revenue has an opportunity to study the situation and gather the necessary date for evaluating the application for stay with a view to protecting the interest of the Revenue. It was noted that the CIT had not considered the application of the assessee for stay properly as it was rejected without giving any reason. Therefore, by order dt. 20th Nov., 1992 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that such a rejection was untenable and until the application was properly considered by the Commissioner, the application before the Tribunal was premature. The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer had powers to grant stay under Ss. 220 and 225 respectively, that they function as subo...
D. Natesan (Died) and ors. Vs. Thayuman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ164
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff D. Natesan who has lost his case in the trial has filed the appeal. Since he died during the pendency of the appeal his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 4.2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers being sons of deceased Dharmalingam Poosari through his first wife Chellammal. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters of Dharmalingam Poosari through his second wife Kannammal. The plaintiffs case is that Dharmalingam Poosari and his brothers out of their joint family income purchased properties as joint family properties. Under a partition entered into between them on 14.8.1944 Dharmalingam got the plaint schedule properties described in the partition deed as 'A' schedule as his share. Then Dharmalingam was the joint family Manager of the joint family consisting of himself and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4.3. The further case of the plaintiff is that taking advantage of Dharmalingam's old...
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ499
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant-Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administrative) Department is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S. No. 18 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tuticorin. The suit O.S. No. 135 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin was filed by the five respondents-plaintiffs as representatives of Hindu Nadar Community of Sebathiapuram, hamlet of Sawyerpuram, Srivaikuntam Taluk. It is for a declaration that the suit temples viz., Muthumalai Amman Temple, Narayanaswamy Temple and Ananda Vinayagar temple are denominational temples belonging to the abovesaid plaintiffs' community and for a consequential permanent injunction.2. The main defence to the suit is that the said Temples are not such denominational temples. One other defence is that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party viz., the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madras. The trial court,...
Nallappa Gounder Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad78
ORDERMaruthamuthu, J. 1. There are two suits between the parties, one filed by the appellant as O.S. No. 13 of 1983 (formerly O.S. No. 1474 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Namakkal) and the other filed by the respondent as O.S. No. 56 of 1982 in the Sub-Court, Namakkal. The plaintiff in one suit is the defendant inthe other and vice versa. They are brother and sister. The plaintiff Nallappa Gounder in O.S. No. 13 1983 who is the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1982 has been unsuccessful in both the suits in the trial Court and has preferred both the present appeal suits against his sister Lakshmi. A.S. No. 495 of 1983 relates to O.S. No. 56 of 1982. The transferred A.S. No. 539 of 1989 relates to O.S. No. 13 of 1983. (We may refer to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 13 of 1983 and the defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1982 as the appellant. The defendant in O.S. No. 13 of 1983 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1982 may be referred to as the respondent in the course of this judgmen...
G. Kaliyaperumal Vs. V. Annamalai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ306
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal is against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1991, dated 31.1.1992, which appeal was filed against the order dated 11.4.1991 in unnumbered execution application in O.S. No. 507 of 1973 by the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore, rejecting the execution application filed by the appellant herein under Section 20 of Act IV of 1938, as amended by Act VIII of 1973.2. Section 20 of Act IV of 1938, which is the relevant section for the purpose of deciding the dispute as follows:20. Stay of execution proceeding every court executing a decree: A decree passed against a person entitled to the benefits of the Act shall on application stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an application made under Section 19: Provided that where within 60 days after the application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court w...
The Kerala Handloom Finance and Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Bal. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1992
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ215
Mishra, J.1. A suit for damages with future interest has been decreed against defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed against third defendant. Plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff is a Government limited company and is carrying on business at P.M. 128, Thilleri Road, Cannanore-1, Kerala State. The first defendant/first respondent is a businessman having his office and business at No. 96, Rue-Saint-Lazare, Paris-8 and having office at all material times at No. 25 Nebert Strasse, 2 Hamburg 76, No. 7 Villa Sequira, C.S.T. Road, Kalina Bombay and No. 9, Valliammal Street, Madras. The second defendant/second respondent is a business concern, carrying on business at No. 7, Sequeira Villa, C.S.T. Road, Bombay-29 and at all material times had an office at Madras.2. The case of the plaintiff has been that in or about February, 1971 it wanted to export handloom goods to foreign countries and had correspondence with several overseas traders. The first defendant approached the plaintiff and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›