Chennai Court December 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.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Klen and Marshalls, Manufacturers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ668
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the second respondent in I.A. No. 1296 of 1997 in C.M.A. No. 205 of 1997, on the file of 6th Additional Judge--In charge of VIIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Plaintiff who is the first respondent herein, filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, its agents, employees, representatives or any other person claiming through or under it from making payment against the Bank guarantees bearing Nos. LG/612/448, LG/612/449 and LG/612/450, all dated 14.9.1996, to the petitioner herein (D-2 in the suit) or to any other person, and for a permanent injunction against the 1st defendant, its agents, employees, representatives or any other person claiming through or under it from making payment against the Bank guarantees bearing Nos. LG/612/281, LG/612/282 and LG/612/283, all dated 16.7.1996 and amended on 26.10.1996, to the second defendant, or to any other person; and for costs of the suit, and ...
Nallu Vs. Pushpam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ468
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 133 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, aggrieved against the order made in C.M.A. No. 37 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindugul, dismissing his petition for injunction has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit against the respondent herein and one Rangan for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is contended that one Venkatasamy Naicker obtained decree in O.S. No. 174 of 1979 against Perumal Naicker and another for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,000. He also obtained an order of attachment before judgment of the property in I.A. No. 261 of 1979 on 16.6.1979. Thereafter he filed E.P. No. 428 of 1981 and brought the property to sale. The petitioner herein has purchased the said property in court auction and took possession through court...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR766(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in T.C.P. No. 259 of 1985, dt. 25th February, 1985, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Surtax Act'), r/w s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961) : '(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not permitting the Revenue to put forward a plea that the amount to be excluded is Rs. 6.99,841 which is the proposed dividend for the year 1972, instead of Rs. 4,86,000 mentioned in the assessment order (ii) Whether the sum of Rs. 6,99,841 should not have been excluded from the capital ?' 2. The assessee is a company and in computing the liability of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the ITO deducted three amounts. We are not actually concerned in the present reference with reference to the correctness of the view of granting deduction of the three amounts m...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. M.V. Arunachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR686(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following common question of law with reference to the two assessees, for our opinion under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 22,83,000 being the sales-tax penalty should be allowed as a liability while valuing the unquoted equity shares under r. 1D of the WT Rules ?' 2. The assessment year involved in respect of both the assessees is 1980-81. The assessees hold certain shares in several companies which are not quoted in the regular stock exchange. The assessees claimed before the WTO that the shares held by them should be valued on yield basis. The WTO, in completing the assessment, rejected the claim of the assessees and held that the valuation of the shares held by the assessees should be done under r. 1D of the WT Rules (hereinafter referred ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. M. V. Arunachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)223
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following common question of law with reference to the two assessees, for our opinion under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 22,83,000 being the sales-tax penalty should be allowed as a liability while valuing the unquoted equity shares under r. 1D of the WT Rules ?'2. The assessment year involved in respect of both the assessees is 1980-81. The assessees hold certain shares in several companies which are not quoted in the regular stock exchange. The assessees claimed before the WTO that the shares held by them should be valued on yield basis. The WTO, in completing the assessment, rejected the claim of the assessees and held that the valuation of the shares held by the assessees should be done under r. 1D of the WT Rules (hereinafter referred to as...
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Ltd., 861 Anna Sala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC82; (1998)IMLJ650
ORDER1. Defendants are the appellants in A.S.No. 830 of 1984 and inC.M.A.NO. 407 of 1986. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit property. The first defendant became a tenant under him on 3.3.1976 in respect of the vacant land. The tenancy was for a period of seven years and the first defendant agreed to vacate and handover possession after the expiry of the said period i.e., on 1.3.1983. since the plaintiff wanted to construct a mini (cinema) theatre in the suit property, he issued a notice to the first defendant.The first defendant sent reply stating about the sub-tenancy in favour of the second defendant. 3. The defence was that the first defendant carried out the levelling work in the suit property. He has sub-leased the suit property to the second defendant. In the defence, the earlier lease given by the father of the plaintiff is also set out. The first defendant entered into an agreement with the second defendant. They have put up construc...
M.S. Rajendran Vs. the Union of India, Rep, by Its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC156
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, prayed forissuance of a writ directing the Union of India and the Chief ElectionCommissioner to explore every possibility before taking a decision to dissolvethe Lok Sahba and to go in for mid-term elections or for any other appropriatewrit, Order or Direction.2. The petitioner averred and claimed to be the Founder and General Secretary of a political Organisation, with an aim and object of spreading the preachings of Perunthalaivar (Great Leader) among the Indian masses it create an egalitarian society and bringing national integration and communal harmony. It is stated that in view of the Jain Commission's interim report placed before the Parliament, there has been hectic attempts by various political parties to impose mid-term election on the People. Various sweepingclaims were made on the basis of ipse dixit. The mid-term election is said to involve huge public money which wo...
R. Jayaraman Gounder Vs. J. Sekhar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC392
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition is taken upfor final disposal.2. The respondent who is the decree holder in O.S.No.684 of 1976 has filed EP.No.261 of 1993 for delivery of possession pursuant to the final decree passed in the partition suit. The only objection raised by the petitioner is that the final decree is not executable unless the final decree is engrossed on stamp paper. He also relied upon the judgment reported in M/s. Madras Hardware Mart v. V. Rutcheeswaran, 1996 (1) L.W. 593. The same principle has been laid by the Supreme Court also in the case of Shankar Balwant Lokhande (dead) by L.Rs. v. Chandrakant shankar Lokhande and another, : (1992)IILLJ18SC . In this case the supreme Court has held as follows:-'As to Makeudan's case, we state that it had not been correctly decided. Limitation does not begin to run from the date when direction is given to pass final decree. Mere giving of direction to supply stamped paper for passingfinal decree d...
Rajendran Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police, Thiruvarur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC418
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1378 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur and the appellant in C.A.No.86 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam. He was charged and tried for an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months together with a fine of Rs.1,000 carrying a default sentence. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed.2. I heard Mr. R. Balakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Mr. R. Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate on the criminal side for the respondent. The sum and substance ofthe arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that on the facts and circumstances available in this case, at best it can be said that entrustment of the money is only established and the subsequent essential ingredients of the di...
M.Shanmughasundaram Vs. N.T.P. Subburaya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC483; (1999)3MLJ293
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the revision is taken up for final disposal.2. The revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority in I.A.No.100 of 1994 in R.C.A.No.7 of 1993 wherein additional evidence has been permitted. The only objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in M.Ayyasami v. S.P.Ganesan 1994 (2) L.W. 376 the application filed under O.41, Rule 27 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence cannot be disposed of independently and the said application has to be taken up along with the appeal. The lower court is not correct in disposing of the application independently. In fact the objection is well founded. The Division Bench, in Ayyaswami's case, 1994 (2) L.W. 376, has held as follows:'It is settled position of law that an application filed in the appeal for permission to adduce additional evidence has to be considered along with the main ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »