Chennai Court January 1997 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.
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector Vs. V.A. Ab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ261
D. Raju, J.1. The State represented by the District Collector of Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The respondents herein have filed O.S. No. 327 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for themselves as pattadars owning double crop wet lands in the villages of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatty and as also representatives of all double crop wet ayacutdhars of the said two villages. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, the appellant herein, from diverting the water of Manjalar either impounding the same at the Manjalar Dam site or otherwise, without arranging for adequate supply of water for the second crop every year for all the registered double crop wet lands in the said villages or in the alternative for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to supply water for two crops on the aforesaid lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti are two adjacent villag...
V.M. Subramania Mudaliar and Sons and Others Vs. Bhavasarakshriya Seva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad163; 1997(1)CTC102; (1997)IMLJ414
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S. No. 1017 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Vellore, aggrieved against the order in I.A. No. 824 of 1994 wherein the court below refused to dispose of the application filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act prior to the disposal of the main suit, has filed the present revision before this Court.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1017 of 1992 before the Principal District Munsif, Vellore, seeking decree for payment of RS. 5,250/- being the arrears of rent from 1-12-1990 to 31-8-1992 and directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing various plaint averments. Pending suit the defendants filed an application in I.A. 47 of 1994 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act praying for an Order directing the plaintiff to sell the suit land for a price to be fixed by the Court. The...
Gomathi Ammal Vs. Madhusoodanan Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC651; (1997)IMLJ474
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Eighth defendant in O.S.No. 192 of 1992 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai aggrieved against the order in I.A.No. 109 of 1994 wherein the court below has dismissed his petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has approached this Court by way of the present revision.2. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 109 of 1994 the petitioner herein submitted that she came to know that an ex parte decree was passed against her on 23.9.92 only on 20.11.93 through her present advocate. She further contended that for the last 30 years she is residing at Bangalore and 1982 onwards she was suffering from rheumatism and due to the said ailment she could not move freely. In those circumstance, she did not go over to Kuzhithurai to ascertain the position of the case. Only on 20.11.93 she came to know about the ex parte decree passed against her on 23.9.92 through her present counsel and immediately she filed the present petition within 30 ...
S.P. Sabura Begum Vs. M.K. Thangavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC95; (1997)IMLJ418
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority has filed the above revision petition. The petitioner/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No. 11 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif of Periyakulam under Section 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 on the ground that the building is more than 60 years old and she has decided to demolish the entire building, namely, Door Nos. 98, 99 and 100, 18th Road, Periyakulam. She has also stated that she was taking steps to get licence and plan from the municipality for the proposed demolition and reconstruction and she has sufficient means to carryout the demolition and reconstruction. In compliance with Section 14(2) of the Act she gave undertaking to commence the demolition not later than one month and complete it within three months. In spite of the notices the tenant did not vacate the buil...
Sree Visalam Chit Funds Ltd., Through Its Manager Vs. T.V. Kumar and 2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC284; (1997)IMLJ438
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. When the above civil revision petition came up for admission before this Court, notice of motion returnable by four weeks was ordered by this Court on 19-11-1996. Though both the respondents were duly served through Court on 2-12-1996, when the case is taken up to-day for final disposal, there is no representation on their behalf.2. This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 31-7-1996 made in I.A.No. 557 of 1994 in O.S.No. 0193 of 1991 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli holding that the suit promissory note, dated 14-7-1987 is not payable 'on demand' and on that score rejected the plaint for the reasons recorded in his order. The first respondent is a subscriber to the chit conducted by the petitioner. The first respondent became the successful bidder and accordingly drew the prize amount after giving necessary security and his wife, the second respondent stood as a surety for the due payment of the balance of the chit amount....
V.M. Subramania Mudaliar and Sons a Joint Family Partnership by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ414
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 1017 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Vellore, aggrieved against the order in I.A. No. 824 of 1994 wherein the court below refused to dispose of the application filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act prior to the disposal of the main suit, has filed the present revision before this Court.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. Nov. 1017 of 1992 before the Principal District Munsif, Vellore, seeking decree for payment of Rs. 5,250 being the arrears of rent from 1.12.1990 to 31.8.1992 and directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing various plaint averments. Pending suit the defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 47 of 1994 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act praying for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the suit land for a price to be fixe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simco Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)456; [1998]233ITR757(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the damages paid by the assessee under s. 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 for belated payment of contribution to the provident fund is an admissible deduction in computing the income from the business of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. It paid a sum of Rs. 16,061 as damages under s. 14B of the Employees' Providence Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee claimed that this sum of Rs. 16,061 paid as damages should be allowed as business expenditure, on the ground that it was paid out for the purpose of business and the amount paid under s. 14B of the Act did not amount to penalty or fine. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the amount...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR779(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the CIT, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 37(2A) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,01,945 not being the entertainment expenditure is an admissible deduction ?' 2. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77 claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,946 as a business expenditure, and the same was disallowed on the ground that it was an entertainment expenditure. On appeal preferred by the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) noticed the fact that the assessee-company had 150 branches, four regional offices and one head office, apart from its foreign branches. The CIT(A) also found that considering the size of the assessee's business, the exp...
M. Vaikundaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC296
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.09.1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P.No. 13640 of 1996.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the proceedings of the Commissioner/Election Officer of the 4th respondent dated 29.08.1996. By the impugned proceedings, the State Election Officer has allotted seats for women in Puliyangudi Municipality.3. The agrievance made is that the allotment of seats for women is not in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayeats, Municipalities and Corporations (De-limitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996 as the allotment offends the provisions which provides for allotment of seats to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Caste women according to the population ratio.4. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Article 243 ZG is a bar for going into the question urged in the writ petition and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is ...
Dr. R. Murali, Professor and H.O.D., Department of Social and Preventi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ471
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The controversy centres around the right of the Vice-Chancellor of the University to be a member of the faculty of the University. The question arose when the Vice-Chancellor offered himself as a candidate for the election to the medical council of India under the category of member of medical faculty of the University for whom representation is provided in Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian. Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of 1956) The relevant part of that Act reads as tinder:3(1)(b) : One member from each University to be elected from amongst the members of the medical faculty of the university by members of the Senate of the University or in case the University has no senate by members of the court....University is defined in Section 2(1) to mean any University in India established by law and having a medical faculty. The Council constituted under Section 3, consists of one representative from each State and Union Territory in the country to be nomin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›