Chennai Court November 1994 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.
Subramaniam Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ237
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The respondent is a cultivating tenant under the petitioner in respect of 2.00 acres of nanja lands in R.S. No. 72 of Vannavodai Village, Tanjore District. The eviction petition was filed under Section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 25 of 1955). According to the landlord, the present tenant's husband by name Singaram was cultivating the above land as cultivating tenant under the petitioner till his death. He had agreed to cultivate paddy crop in the abovesaid land and agreed to measure 48 'kalam' of paddy per year. The lease was only oral. After the death of the said Singaram, his wife the respondent herein is cultivating the land as a lessee under the petitioner; on the same terms and conditions as admitted by her husband. The landlord submits that, contrary to the agreement, the respondent now dug up a pit in a portion of the abovesaid leasehold land ...
Golden Glue Factory Represented by Its Partner and ors. Vs. M. Haroon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ243
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are petitioners herein. The plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1994) against the defendants for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 1 of 1994 was filed for appointment of a commissioner, to take inventory. The trial court appointed a Commissioner. It is against that order, the present revision has been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4.2. According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, the trial court was not correct in appointing a Commissioner to take inventory under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. read with Section 151 thereof. The suit is not maintainable since Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed dated 20.7.1989 specifically stipulates that disputes, it any, between the partners should be referred to arbitration of two persons nominated by majority of partners, and the arbitration decision is binding on the partners. The intention of the executants of the partnership...
Seshachala Chettiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Duraiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ288
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for owner's occupation under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the landlady the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs. 50. The landlady submitted that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.4.1984 to 30.6.1985 for a period of fifteen months, amounting to Rs. 750 per month. According to the landlady on 3.12.1984 the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 250 by way of cheque and also paid another sum of Rs. 250 by way of money orders. Thus the tenant has paid Rs. 500 out of Rs. 750. Therefore, the tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 250 by way of arrears of rent. The landlady also required the petition premises for the purpose of carrying on business ...
Ramiah Konar Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (A) Department and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ309
N. Arumugham, J.1. This second appeal is canvassed against the decree and judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No. 79 of 1981 on 31.8.1981 whereby, he set aside the decree and judgment rendered by the trial court, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli made in O.S. No. 86 of 1978 on 31.8.1979, decreeing the suit which was filed by the appellant herein.2. The brief facts, which led to the second appeal, as culled out from the records, may be stated as follows:The appellant herein is the second plaintiff before the trial court and the suit was laid against the respondents herein, being the constituted authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, praying for the declaration that the suit temple by name Mariamman temple is a denominational temple exclusively belonging to Keelatheru Yadavas of Mullaikulam and for permanent injunction restraining the Officers of the H.R. & C.E. Department, namely, the defendants from in any way int...
Farook Textiles, Represented by Its Partner, A.S. Ummer Vs. S.M. Kamal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ562
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The courts below have ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. According to the respondent, the tenant had not paid rent from December, 1981 till the filing of the petition for eviction. The petitioner raised a plea that he was a tenant under the previous owner, the husband of the respondent herein and when rent was sent by cheque, the previous owner refused to accept the same and the tenant filed a petition for deposit of rent into court, which was numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 181 of 1982 and an order was passed on 19.4.1982 directing deposit of rent into court. According to the petitioner, he was depositing as per that order continuously in that proceeding and therefore, there was no default or wilful default on his part. The courts below have negatived the contention of the petitioner herein. The courts below have found that the previous owner Krishnamachary died on 27.3.1992. Even before an order was passed in R.C.O.P. No. 181 of 1982 f...
Sivagnanam Vs. Natesan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ393
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in M.P. No. 16 of 1993 in P. No. 850 of 1992. The Cultivating tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said eviction petition was filed on 20.7.1992. In the said petition, the landlord claimed that the rent is due for four years from 1988-89 to 1991-92, amounting to Rs. 25,935. The Revenue Court, on considering the facts, arising in this case directed the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,935 on or before .13.5.1993 and produce the challan before the court on 13.5.1993. Since the arrears of rent was not paid, M.P. No. 16 of 1993 was filed by the landlord on 22.6.1993 under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act. The order of eviction was passed in this application on 13.9.1993, since a sum of Rs. 25,935 was not depos...
Kairunnissa Begum Vs. Abdul Razack
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ62
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. Landlady is the petitioner herein. She filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Section 10(3) (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 380. The petition premises is a non-residential one. According to the landlady she requires the petition premises for the purpose of conducting the business by her third son, who failed in his B.Sc. examination. He wanted to start his business in the petition premises in selling electrical goods and electrical fittings, etc. The landlady has made all arrangements for starting the said business in the petition premises. The landlady is not having any other non-residential premises of her own in Vellore town. Therefore she required bona fide the petition premises for the business of her son under Section 10(3) (a)(iii) of the Act. She issue...
N. Mohambaram Vs. C.K.C.M. Kader Shah and Brothers, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ67
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter called the Act). The respondent is the tenant under the petitioner herein in respect of the petition premises facing Kattur Sadayappan Street, Periamet, Madras-600 003, bearing door No. 26, on a monthly rent of Rs. 375 apart from electricity charges. The landlord is also living in the same building having the same door No. 26, but facing Karpuramudali Street, Periamet, Madras 600 003. A partition wall is dividing the landlord's portion and the tenant's portion. There was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant dated 8.9.1982 and according to the said agreement, the tenant agreed to help the landlord financially to construct the first floor so as to enable the landlo...
Nataraja Trading Company Represented by Its Partners and ors. Vs. K. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ27
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction against the tenant for owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The tenant is in occupation of the godown in premises No. 36, Subramani Mudali Street, Madras-600079, belonging to the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 750. The premises is let out for non-residential purpose. According to the landlords they are carrying on business in oil cake in a rented premises at door No. 3, Thatha Muthiappan Street, Madras-1 as a wholesale dealer under the name and style of 'Arvind Traders'. According to the landlords they are not in possession of any other non-residential premises of their own in the city of Madras. Therefore the landlords required the petition premises bona fide for conducting their business, which he is now carrying on i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR673(Mad)
THE COURT 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following three questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was not justified in applying the provisions of r. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, to the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1974-75 (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amendment to the previsions of s. 14 of the Surtax Act, 1964, introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, w.e.f. 1st April, 1971, are applicable to the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1970-71? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the proposed dividend declared subsequent to the end of the accounting year should be treated as a reserve for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, at the time of hearing learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »