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.
R. Maria Siluvai Vs. B. Sreekumari Amma and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC218; (1998)IIIMLJ514
ORDER1. The sixth defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The appeal has been filed challenging the finding of the lower appellate court which had remanded the matter. A preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the second appeal arises for consideration.2. The learned counsel Mr.T.R. Rajaraman relies on the following decisions in support of his contention that the second appeal is maintainable against a finding. Jagadish Chandra Bose v. V. Baijnath Shaw, : AIR1966Cal580 and Devaki Amma and others v. K.P. Sreedharan, : AIR1993Ker348 .The finding challenged by the sixth defendant-appellant is that the sale deeds Exs.B2 to B4 filed in O.S. No.569 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai are void. The learned Subordinate Judge Kuzhithurai in A.S. No.172 of 1982 remanded the matter for affording on opportunity to the plaintiff in the suit to implead the children of the second defendant. The contention of the learned counsel is that the remand is for a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR662(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. We are concerned with two assessment years, viz. 1974-75 and 1975-76 and the question raised is whether the assessee is entitled to claim higher development rebate in respect of generators, trolley and diesel tanks installed by the assessee and used for the purpose of its business. In the original assessment made for the said assessment years, the assessee was granted development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent in respect of generators, trolley and diesel tanks. The ITO reopened the assessment under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), and held that development rebate is not admissible in respect of trolley and diesel tanks, but in respect of generators, the development rebate would be admissible at the rate of 15 per cent. The CIT(A) in an appeal preferred by the assessment against the orders of the reassessment held that the development rebate is admissible at the rate of 25 ...
Syndicate Bank, Rep. by Its Sub-manager Vs. Salem Slate Forms, Firm by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC507
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 52 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 13.6.1984, as the defendants remained ex parte. At the time of filing the petition for final decree, it was found out that by mistake it was prayed in the plaint that preliminary and final decree should be passed, though the suit is only for recovery of money. So, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 115 of 1988 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify the mistake by amending the decree, as the suit is only for recovery of money. The said petition was dismissed by the court below in its order dated 13.10.1990. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above revision.2. In the plaint filed in the above suit, the plaintiff has prayed as follows:-'Therefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree and judgment against the defendant for the suit claim with subsequent interest at contra...
R. Venkiduswamy Chit Funds, Regd, Partnership Firm (710/70) Vs. P.T. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC756
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The plaintiff chit' funds represented by its partner is the appellant. The suit O.S.No. 31 of 1977 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, was filed by the appellant against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 5252.25 due in respect of a chit transaction alleging as follows:The respondent became a subscriber of a chit in the chit group 'A' of Rs. 10,500 for the duration of 700 days under by-law No. 73/71, his member ticket number being 58. The chit commenced on and from 28.5.1971. The subscription was at the rate of Rs. 15 per day and the auction was once in ten days. The respondent became the successful bidder in the first auction held on 6.6.1971. For the payment of future instalments and by way of collateral security, the respondent executed a promissory note on 6.6.1971 for Rs. 10,350 under Ex.A-1. As per the books of the appellant maintained regularly in the ordinary course of business, a sum of Rs. 3,675 as on 16.1.1973 remained due and payable by t...
S. Rukmangathan Vs. J. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ628
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Respondent in I.A. No. 282 of 1997 in O.P. No. 292 of 1996, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, is the petitioner herein. The revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner herein filed a petition for divorce against the respondent. I do not want to delve into the allegations therein except stating that pending proceedings for divorce. Wife filed the above LA. for getting custody of the child. The Family Court ordered the custody of the child to be given to the mother, and the same is challenged in this revision.3. In her application for custody of the child, namely, I.A. No. 282 of 1997 filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she has stated that a female child was born out of the wedlock, and she is now named as Deepika. According to her, the child was born on 12.12.1995, and from the date of birth, the child was in her custody. It is said that the main petition for divorce was posted on 10.3.1...
M.M.Rm. Firm by Its Managing Partner Smt. Sikappai Achi Vs. Haja Beevi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ9
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,100 due on a promissory note dated 20.3.1970. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has paid Rs. 200 on 19.3.1973 and made an endorsement on the pronote, and since the defendant has claimed the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation.3. The defendants' contention was that the suit was barred by limitation. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. hence the suit has to be dismissed.4. The courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that even though moratorium was there on and from 15.1.1975 as per Act 40 of 1978, the suit could be filed from 19.9.1979 and therefore the suit filed on 7.4.1980 was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below have committed mistake in calculating t...
Kannammmal Vs. Bagyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ665
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 158 of 1996 against the petitioner seeking a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession. Pending the suit, the respondent filed I.A. No. 217 of 1996 seeking a prayer for an order of temporary injunction. The petitioner filed a counter objecting the said petition. Pending proceedings the petitioner filed I.A. No. 244 of 1997 in I.A. No. 217 of 1996 under Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C., to direct the respondent herein to appear before the court so as to enable her to cross-examine the plaintiff with respect to the averments in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 217 of 1996. That was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter. The lower court in its order dated 21.3.1997 dismissed the petition and aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the above revision.2. The petitioner has filed the above application under Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C., to direct the plaintiff to c...
Dr. (Mrs.) M. Shams Vs. the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ694
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Placing reliance upon an order issued by the State Government, Order No. 1785, Education (11-3) Department, dated 5th December, 1988, the petitioner who is a lecturer in Philosophy in Madras Christian College claims a right to be appointed as the Head of the Department of Philosophy on the ground that she is the senior most lecturer, having entered service as Lecturer in January, 1979 after she had acquired a Doctor of Philosophy degree in July, 1978. She had been designated as senior lecturer from 1.1.1986. She is admittedly senior to Mr. M. Gabriel who has been appointed as the Head of the Department of Philosophy. He had entered service as lecturer on 3.10.1979, 2112 months after petitioner had entered service. He was designated as senior lecturer on 3.10.1986, 9 months after petitioner had been so designated. He acquired Ph. D. Degree in the year 1992, 14 years after the petitioner had acquired that qualification.2. The Government Order relied upon by t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Sethu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR711(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law arising out of its order ITA No. 435/Mds/1986, dated 12th October, 1977, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the winnings from the lottery by Shri R. Sethu and others were not assessable in the status of AOP or BOI and that 4 separate assessments must be made on the 4 individuals separately as co-owners in respect of their share ?' 2. The brief facts leading to the tax case reference are as under : One R. Sethu, is an assessee. The assessee with his father M. Ramalingam Pillai, his brother-in-law S. Narayanan and his mother-in-law Smt. Seethalakshmi purchased four lottery tickets sold by the Directorate of Small Savings and State Lotteries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The said four persons entered into an ...
Palanichamy Vs. Forest Range Officer, Cumbum, Madurai District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC290
ORDER1. Heard both parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 7.12.1994 in C.A.No.164 of 1992, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai confirming the order of confiscation dated 9.12.1992 in C.C.No.2702 of 1990 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Uthamapalayam, Madurai District wherein the lorry bearing registration No.TNN-4734 was confiscated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, by exercising power under Section 49-G of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 3. According to the prosecution the lorry bearing registrationNo.TNN-4734, belonging to the petitioner was seized, when the lorry wastransporting a scheduled timber, namely teakwood covered with bags ofcabbage and potatoes, on 9.8.1990, from Mettupalayam to Madras. Therefore,the confiscation proceedings were initiated by the concerned Forest RangeOfficer before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, within whosejurisdiction the said scheduled timber was seized, by exercising power und...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »