Chennai Court October 1997 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kasiammal and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC346
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi dated 6.12.96 in MCOP.395 of 1996.2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the death of one Muthammal. The deceased is the mother of the claimants. She died on 3.7.92 at 11.30 a.m. in a road accident, since the tempo bearing Registration No. TCF 4437 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by the driver and hence the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.3. The appellant herein resisted the claim of the claimants, contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased Muthammal, since she suddenly crossed the road. The driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle in a careful manner and the accident did not take pl...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ambrose Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC672; (1998)IIMLJ40
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The judgment-debtor, who suffered a decree in O.S.No. 182 of 1988 on the file of Sub-Court, Thanjavur, dated 3.8.1989 has filed a petition in E.A.No. 59 of 1993 Under Section 47 of the Act to dismiss the execution petition in E.P.No. 36 of 1990. The Lower Court in its order dated 23.9.1993 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above revision.2. The respondent filed O.S.No. 182 of 1988 on the file of Sub-Court, Thanjavur, for passing a decree on a mortgage. The petitioner/second defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the first defendant. In the written statement, it is specifically alleged that the defendant should be allowed to pay the amount in instalments at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month. No oral evidence was adduced on both sides. On the basis of the materials available on record, the lower court in its judgment dated 3.8.1989 decreed the suit with a direction that the defendant should pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Andiappan Vs. Palaniyandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC609
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The defendant who succeeded before the Trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court is the appellant.2. The suit O.S. No. 64 of 1978 was filed by the respondent before the District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai for a declaration that he was entitled to the suit properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant, his men, agents and servants from any manner interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment alleging as follows:- The parties were brothers. Under the original of Ex. A1 dated 26.9.1960, the appellant and the respondent purchased certain properties for a valid consideration of Rs. 2,000, each contributing Rs. 1,000. In the re-survey joint pattas in patta No. 427, 1000, 211, 117, 258, 954 and 31 were issued to them. The mother of the parties also had separate properties of her own and after her death in 1967, the parties inherited those properties as her legal heirs. The mother's properties w...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvel Nainar Vs. D.A. Hatheeja Beebi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ476
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The Second Appeal No. 73 of 1993 arises out of the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge; Tiruchirapalli, dated 28:2.1992 in A.S. No. 401 of 1991 reversing the judgment and decree, dated 23.1.1990 in G.S. No. 741 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif of Perambalur. The first defendant is the appellant in this Court.2. S.A. No. 293 of 1993 is against the very same judgment and decree preferred by the second defendant in suit O.S. No. 741 of 1982. the suit is for declaration and injunction. The case Of the plaintiff in the suit is that the suit properties belonged to her husband Abdul Rahim. The first item was purchased by him from one Duraisamy Nainar under sale deed, dated 29.12.1971 for Rs. 3,000. Similarly he purchased item No. 2 from one Manoranjithammal on 5.1.1972. Ever since, the purchase, the plaintiff and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff's husband has left for Dubai. Originally, the first...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sekar Vs. Mariammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ764
ORDERV. Rengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras with regard to the court-fee paid by the revision petitioner herein. Before the passing of the G.O. No. 1742, Home, dated 23.11.1995, the jurisdiction for the value of the suit exceeding rupees one lakh in the Metropolitan area was only in the High Court and by virtue of the abovesaid G.O. the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court is raised to Rs. ten Lakhs. The revision petitioner herein before the passing of the abovesaid G.O. presented a suit in the High Court paying the court-fee that was payable for the suit filed in the High Court: but as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court was raised, the plaint presented in this Court has been returned for presentation in the proper court. Before the Subordinate Court the valuation of the property will be on ad valorem basis and the deficit court-fee was asked to be paid by the plaintiff. However, the revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Mannammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ338
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. This appeal by the defendants 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 is directed as against the common judgment and decree passed in I.A.No. 91 of 1987 and A.S.No. 191 of 1986 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore on 18.8.1987 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1985 in the suit in O.S.No. 66 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court at Tiruvannamalai.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The suit properties described in the A schedule are the self-acquired properties of one Duraiswami Pillai. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the undivided sons of Duraiswami Pillai. The first plaintiff in the suit is the wife of the said Duraiswami Pillai. The 2nd plaintiff and the 4th defendant are the daughters of Duraiswami Pillai. The original owner Duraiswami Pillai died on 31.5.1962 leaving the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to succeed to his properties. The 3rd defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs and ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Suresh Babu Alias Suresh Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3411
ORDER1. says the Great Saint Thiruvalluvar. The meaning is this : 'What is the duty of the son to his father The son should act in such a way and to make the world ask, what Tapas (penance), his father has made to beget such a son ?' 2. Here is the son, viz., A Suresh Babu alias Suresh, aged about 21 years, a second year B.Com. student studying in A. M. Jain College, Meenambakkam, instead of making the world to ask what Tapas, his father has made to be blessed with a good son, exposed his father, who is a former M.L.A., to make the world ask what sin committed by the father to beget such a son 3. The above expression of mind is an immediate reaction over the perusal of the averments in the complaint made against the petitioner. If those averments which are under investigation are true, this Court could only say, the future of the younger generation would be bleak and gloomy. 4. The petitioner, apprehending arrest in respect of Crime No. 201/97 registered for the offences under Sections...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. K. Sundararamier and Sons.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR740(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee in this case is a partnership firm having its head office at Madras and branches at Madurai and Coimbatore. During the accounting year ended on 12th April, 1975, relevant to the asst. yr. 1975-76, the assessee had credited the interest amounting to Rs. 1,19,711 to the account of Dhanalakshmi Corporation. The said Dhanalakshmi Corporation had to pay interest to the assessee-firm both at its Madurai branch, a sum of Rs. 96,033 and at its Coimbatore branch, a sum of Rs. 16,798 totalling a sum of Rs. 1,12,831. According to the ITO, the assessee-firm should have deducted the income-tax at source on the sum of Rs. 1,19,711 credited in favour of Dhanalakshmi Corporation and since this was not done by the assessee, the assessee has not complied with the provisions of s. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). But, according to the assessee, it should have deducted the tax at source on the net amount of the interest payable...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Lakshmikanthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR643(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the question of deduction of gratuity liability in the computation of principal value of the estate arises on the facts of the case. The Tribunal in pursuance of the direction of this Court under s. 64(3) of the ED Act, 1953, in TCP No. 319 of 1977 dt. 3rd February, 1978 has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of gratuity was payable on the basis of all the employees retiring on the date of death of the estate of the deceased and that therefore, it should be deducted from the principal value of the estate of the deceased for estate duty purposes ?' The question referred to us, in our opinion should be reframed as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of gratuity payable on the basis of all empl...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR810(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J. 1. As per the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 227 of 1979, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether on a proper interpretation of section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing partly the remuneration and commission paid by the assessee to his two brothers engaged as employees in his business ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and he is carrying on the business of manufacturing three wheeler cycles. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 21,000 as the assessable income for the assessment year 1975-76. While arriving at the abovesaid taxable income, the assessee had shown to have paid a sum of Rs. 23,024 to his brother, K. R. Madhukar, as remuneration for technical and supervisory services ren...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »