Chennai Court August 1993 Judgments
Dakshinamurthy Vs. Raman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ392
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 485 of 1986 in O.S. No. 1521 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram.2. Short facts are The revision petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of title and for injunction in O.S. No. 1521 of 1981 and got the decree in his favour. The same was confirmed in the appeal before the lower appellate court. While so, the respondents have filed the second appeal in this Court and it is still pending (S.A. No. 1891 of 1985). According to the revision petitioner, the respondents have not obtained stay of the operation of the order of injunction granted by the courts below. In that background, he has filed E.P. No. 485 of l986 under Order 21, Rule 32(1) praying to proceed against the respondents for Contempt of Court. That was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the second appeal is pending. The court below has dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by that or...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raju Vs. Angammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ426
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question argued by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit instituted by the respondent for eviction is not maintainable inasmuch as a notice under Section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act has not been given prior to the filing of the suit. The courts below have rejected the contention of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the said Act in view of the specific denial of title in a prior proceeding, viz., O.S. No. 323 of 1984. It is argued in this Court that the question whether a person is entitled to the benefits of the Act and whether the Act is applicable to a particular proceeding can be gone into only when there is a valid suit on the file and in the absence of a notice under Section 11 of the Act, the terms of which are mandatory, there is no valid suit on the file of the court in which any question can be decided. Consequently, it is submitted that the suit in the present case ought to have been re...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sashikala Vs. Integrated Finance Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas875(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. The petition is to call for the records connected with C. C. No. 9757 of 1992, on the file of the XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Madras, filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and to quash the same. 2. It is averred in the complaint as follows : 'The complainant submits that the accused herein entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the complainant on June 25, 1990, and had taken delivery of one Yamaha RX 100 motorcycle agreeing to pay a total sum of Rs. 30,990 towards hire charges at the rate of Rs. 738 per month for a period of 48 months. The accused miserably failed and neglected to pay the monthly hire charges regularly. Towards the monthly hire charges payable by her on April 1, 1992, May 1, 1992, and June 1, 1992, the accused issued cheques bearing Nos. 360411, dated April 1, 1992, 360412, dated May 1, 1992, and 360413, dated June 1, 1992, respectively, each for Rs. 738 all the cheques drawn on...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Film Laboratories Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC91; 1995LC26(Madras); 1993(68)ELT747(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner herein has produced a feature film under the title `Adavi Manushulu' in Telugu. According to it, `Purana Purush' in Hindi, `Kattu Manidan' in Tamil and `Silayugathil Sundarigal' in Malayalam are feature films, based on the original Telugu `Adavi Manushulu'. It has claimed exemption under a Notification No. 275/77- C. E., dated 12-8-1977 of the Central Government, issued in exercise of the power under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended, for 12 prints in each language. The petitioner was, however, served with a show cause notice from the office of the third respondent- Collector of Central Excise, Madras, in C. No. III/10/505/78 I. A., dated 24-8-1978 stating that all the 55 prints of the film in different languages were to be treated as one and the same feature film and, therefore, exemption from duty under the said Notification was available only for the first 12 prints, out of the total of 55 prints and for the remaining 43 prints, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamchand Nahar and ors. Vs. Kantilal Chandak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ19
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The respondents 1, 3, 7, 12 and 15 in I.A. No. 1659 of 1984 in O.S. No. 2256 of 1981 on the file of learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. The present respondent-plaintiff instituted the said suit for dissolution and accounts of the firm 'Transworld' and for other reliefs. That suit was originally instituted in 1973, transferred to High Court and again re-transferred to City Civil Court. On 18.1.1984, it was dismissed for default in the City Civil Court. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 1658 and 1659 of 1984. The first application is one under Order 9. Rule 9, C.P.C., to restore the suit to file. The next application is under Order 39, Rules land 2, C.P.C, to restrain the present appellants from in any manner dealing with the property bearing No. 13, Venkatanarayana Road, Madras 17 either byway of lease or mortgage or any other manner of alienation by way of settlement, gifts etc or demolishing the building pending...
Tag this Judgment!Ariff Vs. M.E. Aliyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ669
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in A.S. No. 131 of 1989, which in turn arose out of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 262 of 1988. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 262 of 1988 for eviction and for collection of arrears of rent. The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 payable on or before 5th day of every English calendar month. According to the plaintiff the defendant committed default in payment of rent for a period of five months from 1.5.1988 amounting to Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 27.8.1988 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 30.9.1988. The tenancy was also terminated from 30.9.1988. The defendant received the notice sent by the plaintiff on 6.9.1988. However, the defendant did not send any reply for this notice. Hence, the plaintiff c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. S.C.M. Zackariya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR186(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The Revenue sought for referring the following question to this Court for decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in its view that the amount of Rs. 28,250 representing half share of the difference between the document price and the market value is not assessable as deemed gift for purposes of the GT Act, 1958 ?' 2. As per the order passed by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 28,250, which represents the difference of the amount between the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the actual market value of the property in question sold, is stated to be in the hands of the assessee and on that basis, it has been assessed to wealth-tax and the assessment made under the WT Act has become final. On that basis only, the Tribunal has held that it cannot be considered to be a gift because it has been actually received by the assessee. This finding is based upon the WT assessment order. Therefore, it is also ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR343(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred are as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the remuneration and sitting fees paid to the assessee by Messrs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited. Messrs. Venkatesa Thyagaraja Limited and Messrs. Tiruchy Distilleries and Chemicals Limited is not the income of the Hindu undivided family and is assessable in the assessee's hands in the status of an individual Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration and sitting fees having been received by the assessee in his individual capacity, such income was assessable in his hands in the status of an individual and, therefore, such income was properly asse...
Tag this Judgment!K. Marappan Vs. Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ419
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order made in I.A. No. 696 of 1986 in O.S. No. 102 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem.2. The short facts are : The revision petitioner had filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and obtained a decree on 17.8.1987. The trial court had granted three months time for the deposit of the sale price. After extension of time, on two occasions, to deposit the sale price the petitioner herein filed E.A. No. 696 of 1986 for another extension (third extension) of lime by nine months. The same was resisted by the respondents. The court below, after hearing the parties has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. K. Sampath, learned Counsel appearing for the revision, would submit that the order of the court below is a non-speaking order; that the court had got power to extend time for more than one occasion; ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan Nair and ors. Vs. K. Parameswaran Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ207
Srinivasan, J.1. The former appeal arises out of the suit for petitioner in O.S. No. 43 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai and the latter appeal arises out of the suit for specific performance filed by the first defendant in the other suit, as O.S. No. 33 of 1979 on the file of the same court. Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 to in O.S. No. 43 of 1979 are the appellants in the former appeal and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 33 of 1979 is the appellant in the latter appeal. The parties will be referred to by their ranks in A.S. No. 348 of 1982.2. The first appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent purchased for a sum of Rs. 7,000 certain properties including the suit properties from one Govindan Nambudhiri on 7.3.1962. In the document of purchase, reference was made to a decree in O.S. No. 380 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kuzhithurai, for possession. The vendor had assured the purchasers that he would get delivery of possession in executi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »