Chennai Court November 1997 Judgments
Dhanalakshmi and ors. Vs. G. Mouna Gurusami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ458
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal.2. tie petitioners have filed this revision against the order of the court below in condoning the delay of 5 years 10 months and 21 days in representing the appeal; The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the inordinate delay had been condoned without any sufficient cause. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the papers were entrusted to the lower court counsel for filing the appeal and the respondent has been meeting the clerk of the counsel on many occasions. On these occasions, the respondent was informed by the Advocate's clerk that the appeal is pending and whenever it is listed for arguments, he would inform. Only in April, 1992 the Advocate's clerk informed the respondent that the appeal a papers are missing. The counsel also ...
Tag this Judgment!Pathima Sultan Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. S. Hamed Oil and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ19
K. Sampath, J.1. Defendants 17 to 20 in O.S. No. 32 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai and respondents 17 to 20 in A.S. No. 62 of 1983 on the file of the District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam are the appellants in S.A. No. 597 of 1984.2. Defendants 2, 21 and 22 in O.S. No. 32 of 1981 and respondents 2, 21 and 22 in A.S. No. 62 of 1983 are the appellants in S.A. No. 1281 of 1984. The contesting respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and appellant in the appeal before the lower appellate court. The second appeals have been filed against the same judgment namely A.S. No. 62 of 1983 by different parties to the proceedings.3. The suit O.S. No. 32 of 1981 was filed by the first respondent against 22 defendants, some of whom were tenants, and was for a decree that he was entitled to joint possession along with the first defendant in the suit one Batcha Mohideen and others of the plaint A schedule properties with a joint right of management of B schedule t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)15
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :Two questions of law arise in the tax case reference and the first question is whether the order of the ITO without granting the interest on the refund paid to the assessee is an appealable order and the second question is whether the order passed under s. 104 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is an order of assessment within the meaning of s. 244(1A) of the Act.2. The assessee is a company and it is a successor to M/s Sundaram Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. as a result of the amalgamation of the latter company with the assessee-company. The ITO, for the asst. yr. 1970-71 levied additional income-tax of a sum of Rs. 3,57,984 under the provisions of s. 104 of the Act. The assessee questioned the propriety of the levy of the additional tax before the CIT(A) who cancelled the same, which was confirmed by the Tribunal.3. The ITO, on the receipt of the order of the CIT(A) gave effect to the order of the CIT(A) and in the order said to have been pa...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy Gounder Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1470
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant stood charged for having committed the offence under Section 302, IPC and was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Velore in S.C. No 84 of 1996 who convicted him under Section 302, IPC, imposing Rigourous Imprisonment for life for causing the murder of his wife Danabakiyam Ammal and imposing sentence of death for committing the murder of his daughter Nagammal. 2. Against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has preferred the Crl. A. No. 461 of 1997 and a reference has been made by the Court of Sessions under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation and it is numbered as R.T. 3 of 1997. Thus, both the reference and the criminal appeal are before us for hearing. 3. The prosecution case is that the appellant Duraisamy, with his wife and children, was living in a shed situated in the midst of a garden, belonging to the family, at Devarisikuppam village. He was addicted to liquor and used to demand money from his wife f...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jesudoss Inbaraj Vs. Imayavarman and Other
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC106
ORDER1. Heard both the parties.2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.1995 in Crl.M.P.No.2388 of 1995 in C.C.No.201 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chengai M.G.R. District, allowing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr.P.C. and discharging the first respondent in the above criminal case, namely C.C.No.201 of 1995.3. The first respondent was facing a trial for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 326, I.P.C. with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 17.4.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. wherein the first respondent was said to have caused grievous injury on the petitioner herein, who was the victim, complaint in C.C.No.201 of 1995, by using a black stone. However, before the above criminal case was taken up for trial, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge him.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, however, taking note of the contradictions in the FIR, dischar...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. Lilly Ammal Alias Nelli Ammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC163
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.811 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil. The first respondent herein has filed the said suit for declaration of her title and for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The suit has been filed in July, 1994. The petitioner herein filed an application I.A.No.962 of 1996 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, after the examination of P.W.1, to note down the physical features of the suit property with special reference to the building, to note down the nature of the property with reference to the level of the property, compound walls 'if any' on all sides and pathway etc., and such other points as may be required at the spot. The application was dismissed by the lower court by order dated 19.2.1997 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.3. Le...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Fatha and Another Vs. Villayudham and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC627; (1998)IIIMLJ237
ORDER1. These revisions have been filed by the defeated tenants against the order of eviction passed against them and against the order confirming the decision of the Rent Controller dismissing their application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The facts leading to the revision petition are as under:The revision petitioner became tenants under one Ameenudeen Sahib on a monthly rent of Rs.200 in respect of the property subject matter of the proceedings. They paid rent regularly upto June, 1994. On 30.7.1994 under Ex.P.l the respondent Villayudham caused a notice to be issued to them stating that he had purchased the property from Ameenudeen Sahib on 13.6.1994 and requesting them to pay the rent to him. A reply was sent on behalf of the revision petitioners stating that their erstwhile landlord had not informed them about the sale and a copy of the sale deed was re...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: [2001]247ITR176(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a textile mill manufacturing yarn. For the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant accounting year ended on March 31, 1964, the assessee-company returned an income of Rs. 2,53,368. The assessee, in the assessment proceedings, claimed a deduction towards bad debts in the name of Vijayakumar Cotton Press and another, totalling to Rs. 1,37,760. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the advances made to the parties were not for the business purposes of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal, on further appeal by the assessee went into the matter and found that the claim of the assessee that the amount represented business debt and the loss of money returned should be treated as business debt cannot be accepted and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer has correctly added the sum of Rs. 1,37,760, in...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jayamohan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR386(Mad)
Janarthanam J.1. These revisions, at the instance of the assessees, are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras-5 (for short 'the CAIT'), in suo motu revision proceedings under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, (Act No. V of 1955 - for short 'TNAIT Act'), in SMRP Nos. 45 and 46 of 1987 dated September' 19, 1989, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. 2. The assessees are the sons of one A. Wilson and his wife Mrs. Leela Wilson. It appears that Mr. A. Wilson died in the year 1969 and Mrs. Leela died in the year 1979. The assessees, it is said, inherited from their parents 46.17 acres of land in Mancode, Nallor and Kakulam villages. The assessees, it is said, effected among themselves oral partition of the entire holdings in the year 1977 and pursuant to the oral partition so made, they enjoyed their individual shares by metes and bounds. It appears that the assessees recorded the oral partition by mea...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramachandra Nadar and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC760; (1998)IMLJ538
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 587 of 1984 had been adjudicated as insolvent in I.P.No. 24 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindugal. The properties in question, namely, item Nos.1 and 2 were brought for sale and the sale was held on 9.4.1979. In the said sale the appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 19 of 1984 had been declared as successful bidder and the same was confirmed in his favour. To set aside that sale, the insolvent filed M.P.No. 46 of 1980 the file of the Sub-Court, Dindugal. The same was dismissed by the Sub- Court, Dindugal in its order dated 10.3.1982. Aggrieved against the same, the insolvent filed further appeal in C.M.A.No. 83 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Madurai North at Dindugul. The learned district Judge in his order dated 5.10.1983 set aside the sale in so far as item No. 1 is concerned and confirmed the order in respect of item No. 2. Aggrieved against the same bother the insolvent and the purchaser have filed the above revisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »