Chennai Court November 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.
S. Aseervatham Nadar and ors. Vs. Sathiadas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC413
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed suit for partition of 1/3rd share in both A and B schedule properties. The defence was that he is entitled to a share in the B. Schedule property and the said share is i.e. 72 cents south of CF line marked in Ex.B6 plan.2. The main question that was considered by the trial court is whether the decision in a demarcation suit i.e. O.S.175 of 1966 (O.S. No. 1263 of 1108 M.E.) wherein it was held that the plaintiff and his family were entitled to only the shares south of CF line in ExB6 plan is binding on the parties. But as per the trial court, the decision in the demarcation suit is not binding because they are not suit for partition and further the plaintiff did not figure as a party in the above suit. Therefore, according to the trial court, the decision in O.S.No.175 of 1966 was not binding on the plaintiff. Hence he gave a decree for l/3rd share in the entire B schedule property. ...
T.E. Haja Maideen and anr. Vs. Moona Abdul Latif
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ519
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners obtained a decree in Originating Summons No. 238 of 1984 of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, and they filed E.P. No. 1 of 1989, on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, to execute the same. The lower court dismissed the same finding that the alleged order to be executed is not a final order, that the petitioners have not obtained any permission from the Reserve Bank of India as required under Sections 26(6) and 47(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and that the alleged decree had been superseded. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision.2. On the basis of the 'order for leave', on the file of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore in Oringinating Summons No. 238 of 1984 dated 2.4.1984, in which it was ordered that 'pursuant to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (Chapter 16), the plaintiffs be at liberty to enforce the award of M/s. M. Momamoo, S.K. Jafer, T.A. A...
T. Ramachandra Nadar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ538
ORDERGovindarajan, 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, Dindigul. 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 con-firmed in his favour. To set aside that sale, the insol-vent filed M.P. No. 46 of 1980 the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul 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 Dindigul. The learned District Judge in the Order dated 5.10.1983 set aside the sale inso-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 revision and the appeal respectively.2. The learned Couns...
Aseervatham Nadar and ors. Vs. Sathiadas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ487
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of 1/3rd share in both A and B schedule properties. The defence was that he is entitled to a share in the B Schedule property and the said share is i.e., 72 cents south of C.F. line marked in Ex. B-6 plan.3. The main question that was considered by the trial court is whether the decision in a demarcation suit i.e., O:S. 175 of 1966 (O.S. No. 1263 of 1108 M.E.) wherein it was held that the plaintiff and his family were entitled to only the shares south of C.F. line in Ex. B-6 plan is binding on the parties. But as per the trial-court, the decision in the demarcation suit is not binding because they are not suit for partition and further the plaintiff did not figure as a party in the above suit. Therefore, according to the trial court, the decision in O.S. No. 175 of 1966 was not binding on the plaintiff. Hence he gave a decree for 1/3rd share in the entire B schedule ...
Shabhas Khan Ghori Pallivasal, (Hanifee Jamatu) Sivakasi Through Its P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ260
K. Sampath, J.1.The defendants who lost before both the courts below are the appellants. The respondent. filed suit O.S.No. 1068 of 1978 before the District Munsif, Sattur, for declaration and injunction and for recovery of compensation of Rs. 400, alleging as and sold the same of Rs. 400. The respondent gave a police complaint to Sivakasi Police, who advised the respondent to file a civil suit. The suit was therefore instituted.2. The first appellant filed a written statement and an additional written statement and they were adopted by the second appellant. The contents of the same were as follows:The description of the property in the plaint was not correct. The respondent was not a trustee of the Thaikkal Trust and he was not entitled to sue. He should prove the existence of such a trust. The inams granted had been resumed by the Government. It was not correct to state that the suit property was granted to the said trust in 1866 under title deed No. 531. It was granted only to Muthu...
R. StalIn Vs. the State Election Commissioner, State Election Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC13
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of the writ of mandamus, directing the 5th respondent to permit the petitioner to represent his Election Petition inS.R.No.14590 of 1996, which has been returned with an endorsement as belated, and thereby entertain the election petition to prosecute the election case in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.2. The petitioner was one of the candidates who contested for the post of Council Member to the Kollidam Panchayat Union. He was a candidate from Ward No.4, which is a single member ward, and there were four candidates. The election was held on 12.10.1996, and the counting was taken up on 14.10.1996. It is said that the Election Officer failed to observe the rules contemplated under the Panchayats Act for counting the votes and declaration of results. It is said that even though he secured 1029 votes, it was stated by the Election Officer that he secured only 960 votes, and 130 votes polled in his favour was not ac...
V.A. Panneerselvam and Etc. Vs. the State and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2720
ORDER1. The petitioners in all these applications are seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in respect of a case in Crime No. 22/97 registered under Sections 409, 467 and 471 read with 34 and 109 I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by one Mr. G. Rajappa, Deputy Director of Sericulture, Government Anna Silk Exchange, Kancheepuram, with regard to the charge for misappropriation, falsification of accounts and forgery of documents. 2. The facts are these :- The Government of Tamil Nadu have sanctioned a scheme to open a Silk Exchange at Kancheepuram in G.O. Ms. No. 94 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G-II) Department, dated 14-3-1990. The raw silk produced in these areas is marketed through Tansilk which procures all silk at fixed price. In order to ensure competitive price in silk marketing, a Silk Exchange in the line of Bangalore Silk Exchange was though of. The same has been decided to be located at Kancheepuram. 3. The location of Silk Exchange at Kancheepur...
Rama Rao and Another Vs. Bashu Khan Saheb and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC363; (1998)IIIMLJ605
ORDER1. The plaintiffs who lost in both the courts below are the appellants herein. The suit O.S. No.1175 of 1978 was filed in the District Munsifs' Court, Villupuram, for passing a preliminary decree and final decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, personally and also out of the charged properties set out in the plaint, a sum of Rs.4,142.50, stating as under:-The respondents herein executed a sate deed in favour of the second plaintiff/second appellant under Exhibit A-1 dated 21.6.1978 for a consideration of Rs.21,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid by the second appellant on the date of the sale deed. The respondents requested the appellants to postpone the registration of the sale deed till after the marriage of their daughter was finalised. The second appellant therefore did not get the sale deed registered immediately. The registration was being postponed on the pretext that the marriage of the respondents daughter had not been finalised. The appellants took the res...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Repco Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR656(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C. P. No. 186 of 1984, dated December 4, 1934, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81 for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 35B in respect of the commission paid to Amalgamations Limited and also on its share of contribution paid to India Pistons Limited for participating in a trade exhibition ?' 2. The question referred to us consists of two parts one regarding the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction in respect of the commission paid to Amalgamations Ltd., and another in respect of its share of its contribution paid to India Pistons Limited for participating in an international trade exhibition. 3. The...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.M. Sp. L. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR543(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a partner of a firm. The firm owned certain assets eligible for exemption under section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the year 1976-77, the Wealth-tax Officer valued the agricultural lands owned by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, but did not grant exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the agricultural lands and that the assessee was not having any specific interest in the assets of the partnership. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal on further appeal by the Department dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act. The above order of the Tribunal is the subject-matter of reference and the following question of law has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »