Chennai Court January 1996 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.
Selvaraj Vs. the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad420
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 546 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai, has preferred this Second Appeal against the reversing judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in A. S. No. 52 of 1981, dismissing the suit.2. The suit is against the Educational Authorities of the Government and is for declaration that the plaintiff's school is a minority school within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and its Rules against the plaintiff's School. The trial Court, though did not grant the injunction relief prayed for, granted the declaration relief prayed for. But the Lower Appellate Court, in the appeal preferred by the defendants, dismissed the suit in entirety.3. The only ground on which the Lower Appellate Court did not grant the declaration prayed for is that the plaintiff is only a sing...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.P. Muthukaruppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR562(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this tax case petition, the Department requires that the Tribunal may be directed to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1760/Mad/1987, dt. 10th December, 1990, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision that income from Malaysia cannot be subjected to tax in India is in accordance with the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion of Tax, entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia (Notification No. GSR 167(E), dt. 1st April, 1977 ?' Since this question has been covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of this Court rendered in CIT vs . VR. S. R. M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) , we reject the question referred to us. Accordingly, this tax case petition is dismissed. No costs. ...
Subbiah Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. M.A. Thirunavukkarasu Pillai (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ16
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The averments of the plaint are as follows: The suit property belong to the plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff has been personally cultivating the lands. It has been recorded in his name by the Tenancy Record Officer also. The defendant was engaged by the 2nd plaintiff for irrigating the lands. His services were terminated since he did not do the work properly. He filed a suit in O.S. No. 1152 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif s Court, Tiruchirapalli for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with his possession. In the said suit he claims to be a cultivating tenant. Interim injunction was granted in his favour. Taking advantage of the same, he has trespassed into the suit property in the 2nd week of August, 1974 and harvested the crops raised by the plaintiffs. The defendant has no right or interest in the suit property. He is also liable to pay the income he has realised by selling the paddy raised by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for ...
Ramasami Padayachi and ors. Vs. Pavadai Sami Padayachi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ88
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Consequent upon the death of Pavadaisami Padayachi, the 1st respondent in both the second appeals, viz., S.A. Nos. 1663 and 1664 of 1982 on 22.4.1990, this petitions have been filed for bringing his legal representatives on record, for setting aside the abatement and for excusing the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement. The delay in each case is very much inordinate, it being 1871 days. The relevant petitions to excuse the said delay are C.M.P. No. 16385 of 1995 in S.A. No. 1663 of 1982 and C.M.P. No. 16386 of 1995 in S.A. No. 1664 of 1982. S.A. No. 1683 of 1982 is against the concurrent decree passed by the courts below for specific performance of the suit sale agreement, in favour of the said Pavadaisami Padayachi S.A. No. 1664 of 1982 is against the concurrent dismissal of the suit for redemption filed by the original mortgagor and the alleged subsequent purchasers against the said Pavadaisami Padayachi.2. The averments in the affidavits fil...
S. Kandasami Vs. Aparanji Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ463
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendant, who failed in the courts below, has preferred this second appeal. He entered possession of the suit property, which is a building under a contract with one Velu, who was the owner of the building on 2.9.1975. He paid a sum of Rs. 4,000 to the said Velu, who executed a promissory Note, marked as Ex. B-1. As per the recitals in the promissory note, interest was payable at the rate of 12% p.a. He gave another sum of Rs. 1,000 on 1.5.76 as evident from Ex. B-2 and another promissory note was executed under which also, Velu had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum.2. On the date of the execution of the first promissory note, a document was brought into existence, which is marked in the appellate court as Ex. B-3. The caption in the document is (rental agreement muchalika). In the preamble, it is described as . It can be roughly translated into English as 'a document of deposit muchalika relating to house rent'. In the body of the document, it i...
Thirumangai Naidu Vs. R. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ259
Raju, J.1. The appellant in the above second appeal is the defendant in O.S. No. 3024 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Cuddalore and the respondents are the heirs and successors in interest of late Kamalammal, wife of Late V.R. Radhakrishna Reddiar and who was also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3024 of 1979.2. The plaintiff's husband, Radhakrishna Reddiar was said to have purchased the suit property from one Thillaikannu Ammal, under a registered sale deed dated 27.9.1964 for a sum of Rs. 3,000. After his purchase, he was claimed to have demolished the building that was on the south side and built superstructure at a cost of Rs. 50,000 in the year 1965. The suit property was said to have originally belonged to one Krishnasami Padayachi, the grand-father of P.W.1 Venugopal. Thillaikannu Ammal was the wife of Krishnasami Padayachi. In a suit filed in O.S. No. 235 of 1945 by Venugopal, a compromise decree was said to have been passed as entered into between the said Venugo...
C. R. Murugesan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mad)418
ORDERG. CHOWDHURY, J. M. :The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee as the Karta of his HUF filed a return disclosing a loss of Rs. 38,986 for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) accepting the loss. There was a search in the house of the assessee on 19th May, 1989. During the course of the search a copy of an unregistered sale agreement dt. 18th Feb., 1986, was seized, according to which the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Pioneer Engineering Corpn., Madras to sell the immovable property consisting of land to the extent of 2.55 acres including the superstructure standing on the said land. The consideration was Rs. 85 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was received as advance on 18th Feb., 1986. According to the agreement, the assessee had given possession to M/s Pioneer Engg. Corpn. who is a promoter of a multi-storeyed building and Pioneer Engg. Corpn. ...
Payasam Karuppannan Vs. Viswananthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC193
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 181 of 1990, on the file of District Munsif's Court at Erode, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by him was one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. Material averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit property situated in Erode and the locality is known as Sait Colony. It is said that by various transactions of the owners of the property, an east west omen cart track upto a well on the north of the site owner to reach their respective plots from the south was provided. Plaintiff came to occupy a portion of the road and put up a shed about 25 years ago. It is said that the plaintiff has been making use of the same for the last 25 years, and has prescribed title by adverse possession. Defence has acquired one such site from the owner and is running a Nursery School. Defendant is claiming that suit property also as his own and also...
Sri Mahaveer Waste Factory and Four ors. Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC205
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Defendant 1 to 5 are the appellants. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,979-03 as damages on various hoards. The defendants had resisted the same under various grounds and a counter claim has also been made against the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. During the trial, after the evidence of P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff has been recorded, the defendants have not let in any evidence. Inspite of opportunity given to the defendants they did not adduce any evidence. The trial Court has, therefore, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the suit claim under Order 17 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. Since the question for consideration in this appeal is whether the decreeing of the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C., is valid or not, the averments in the plaint as well as the written statement made by the respective parties are not narrated in this Judgment.2. The suit has been decreed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., by the trial court in favour of...
Seethaiammal and Two ors. Vs. Saramariammal Koil Street, thevar Mahaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC267
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners, who are defendants in the suit O.S. No. 185 of 1994, have filed the revision. The first respondent herein has filed the application I.A. No. 557 of 1994 seeking leave of the court to file the suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. The lower court has allowed the application. The petitioners, aggrieved by the said order, have filed the revision. The only ground urged before this Court is the same ground that had been urged before the lower court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 92 of C.P.C. which is as follows:- '(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate- General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentions or not, in the principal C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »