Chennai Court November 1997 Judgments
H.P.A. International and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas682(Mad)
J. Kanakaraj, J. 1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 in C. S. No. 338 of 1981 are the appellants in both the appeals. The first respondent, State Bank of India, filed the suit, C. S. No. 338 of 1981, seeking a preliminary decree against the first defendant-firm in a sum of Rs. 8,74,137.77 with interest on the principal amount at the rate of 19.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests, for a personal decree against the first defendant for the same amount, and a personal decree against defendants Nos. 2 to 6 in a sum of Rs. 13,81,894.26 with interest at 19.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests. After the plaint was amended as per the order in Applications Nos. 868 and 869 of 1984, dated February 27, 1984, the seventh defendant was impleaded and a prayer for a decree in a sum of Rs. 11,99,805.18 against defendants Nos. 2 to 7 with interest at 19.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests was also sought for.2. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff is as follows : The first defendant was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Leign Bazar Merchants Association Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR367(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These four tax case references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the Revenue and the relevant assessment years are 1976-77 to 1979-80. The previous year relevant to the assessment years ended on 30th September of the respective years. 2. The question which has been referred for the decision of this court reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the status of the assessee should be taken as that of 'guarantee company' and that exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act should be allowed in respect of the assessee's income from the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 ?' 3. The assessee filed returns of income for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 claiming the status of 'guarantee company'. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the assessee for both the assessment years and treated the as...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminathan and anr. Vs. Duraisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ481
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. After the matter was heard for some time, counsel for the respondent refused to argue the matter. Under the apprehension that he has not been fully heard and his client should be given an oppor-tunity to raise all objections before the lower court.2. The review application has been filed only on the ground that the distribution of property in respect of item 22 of the schedule mentioned in the decree is not correctly mentioned so far as the survey number is concerned and hence the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the decree before the trial court to amend the survey number by incorporating the correct survey number alone. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no change of boundaries is sought for and the extent is specifically mentioned in the decree and there is no dispute with regard to the identification of the property also; but however, the trial court had rejected the amendment on the ground that since the matter had ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Selvamani and Four ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officers-cum-revis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ639
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners have filed the writ petition to quash the order of the third respondent, dated 28.1.1994 regarding Tenancy Rights Revision Petition No. 10 of 1993 wherein the fourth respondent was declared as the cultivating tenant.2. The lands which are the subject matter of the tenancy originally belonged to one Govindarajan who died in the year 1986. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the said Govindarajan. He had executed a registered othi deed in the year 1976 in favour of one Rajappa Sennandar. After the death of the said mortgagee, his legal representatives had executed a deed of assignment in favour of one Thangappa on 3.9.1987. The petitioners filed a suit O.S. No. 237 of 1991 for redemption. The said suit was decreed against which, the fourth respondent herein filed an appeal A.S. No. 146 of 1992. The said appeal was also dismissed. However before the filing of the suit, the mortgagee had set up the fourth respondent herein as a cultivat...
Tag this Judgment!Cottage Industries, (Unit of Sri Aurobindo Udyog Trust) Sri Aurobindo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ553
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. W.P. No. 16123 of 1997 has been filed by M/s. Cottage Industries a Unit of Sri Aurobindo Udyog Trust praying for the issue of writ of declaration declaring as illegal and unenforceable the notification dated 7.3.1997 made in G.S.R. 140 (E) by the Ministry of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution in so far as it seeks to limit Sub-clause (c) of Rule 34, in respect of the item 'Incense sticks' under Standard Weight of (PC) Rules, 1977 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. W.P. No. 16124 of 1997 has been filed by M/s Udavi Auroshika Agarbathis seeking for identical relief.3. Both the writ petitions were heard jointly and Mr. S. Venkataraman, counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the notification dated 7.3.1997 is illegal and unenforceable.4. The petitioners in both the Writ petitions claim that they are manufacturers of Agarbathi and the manufacturing of Agarbathis is a cottage industry. It is the claim of the petitioner th...
Tag this Judgment!The Kanyakumari Diocese of the Church of South India, Represented by R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ622
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) in G.O. Ms. No. 810, R.D. & D.A., dated 17.5.1979 and the declaration issued in G.O. Ms. No. 326, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, dated 12.12.1996 and quash the same.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rangaraju, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. this Court by order dated 27.10.1997 called upon the Government Advocate to produce the, file relating to acquisition. Accordingly, the respondents have produced the files and arguments were advanced by the counsel for either side. There is no controversy with respect to the factual aspect of the matter.3. By G.O. Ms. No. 810, R.D. and L.A., dated 17.5.1979 Section 4(1) notification was issued by the first respondent and the said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 20.6.1979. The substance ...
Tag this Judgment!W.T. Jothimani Vs. Minor Khoday Prakash Sah Represented by Mother-guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ232
J. Kanakaraj, J.1. This Special Tribunal Appeal has had a chequered career. The appeal also illustrates the different between the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act and proceedings before the civil court. We will first set out the facts before we refer to the question of law relating to the precedence to be given to the judgment of civil court over the judgment of the Revenue court, according to the circumstances of the case.2. Town Survey Nos. 1756, 1757, 1758 and 1760 in ward No. 2, Kancheepuram Town originally comprised in T.D. No 1152 were inam lands. The inam character of the lands stood abolished with effect from 15.2.1965, by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act XXX of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The settlement Tahsildar took up suo motu enquiry in his proceedings S.R.2880/A.C.T./K.P.M., dated 13.6.1968 granted ground rent patta under Section 13(1) of the said Act 30 of 1963 in favour of several persons. In respect of T.S.No. 1758/ 2 with whi...
Tag this Judgment!Carborandum Company Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)61
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.These are two batches of tax cases arising at the instance of the revenue and at the instance of the assessee out of a common order of the Tribunal, and the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :Question of law at the instance of the assessee1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to interest, in respect of its assessments to income-tax for 1958-59 to 1972-73, under the provisions of section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from a date following the expiry of three months from the order dated 31-10-1975, passed by the Tribunal in the appeals against the assessee for these years ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was entitled to interest, for these assessment years, only from the date of the judgment of the Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kumar Naicher Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ533
ORDERK. Samapath, J.1. The petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No. 857 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.8.1985 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.9.1985 and G.O.Ms.No. 1525 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28.9.1986 which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 29.9.1986 from the first respondent herein and quash the notification and declaration respectively under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) published in the issues of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettes dated 25.9.1985 and 29.9.1986 respectively in respect of the petitioner's land in S.Nos. 83 part 87/1 and 99/1 measuring 1.40 acres totally in No. 79, Vanagaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District, alleging as follows:The petitioner's father was the owner of the lands in S.No. 87/1 measuring 1.52 cents. The father partitioned the property...
Tag this Judgment!Kannappa Mudaliar (Died) and 2 Others Vs. Ayyaswami Gounder (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC33
ORDER1. The first appellant filed the above appeal aggrieved against the order of the lower appellate court, (Sub-Judge, Tindivanam) in C.M.A.S.No.10 of 1983. The first respondent along with others filed O.S.No.165 of 1965 praying for a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the seven items of properties. The lower court in its judgment dated 8.3.1966 and the plaintiffs filed Cross Objections aggrieved against the said judgment. The lower appellate court dismissed the said appeal and allowed the Cross Objections. Aggrieved against the same, further appeal in S.A.No.734 of 1969 was filed by the first appellant herein. This Court modified the decree granting relief to the plaintiff/first respondents herein only with respect to item No.1, one acre and 10 cents in Item No.2 and the well in Item No.4. Pending the second appeal, the High Court, in C.M.P.No.7521 of 1969 directed the first defendant/1st appellant herein to pay some amount as a condition for granting stay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »