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.
J. Ruth Vs. C. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)112; 1997(3)CTC562
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J.1. The respondent in M.C. No. 3o of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Poonamallee and the 1st Respondent before the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl. R.C. No. 1 of 1993, has preferred this revision petition.2. The revision petitioner, by name Mrs. J. Ruth claiming to be the wife of the respondent, and her sons alleged to have been born to her through the respondent C. Mani, have filed M.C. No. 3 of 1990 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Poonamallee, claiming maintenance. Learned Magistrate, who recorded the evidence of parties, came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month with effect from 10.4.1990 and the petitioners by name Gopi and Jeyakumar as miner sons of the respondents are entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 each per month from the above date and dismissed the claim of the 1st son Murali, who had already attained majority. Aggrieved by the said order, th...
Subbuthai Vs. Sri Sundara Vinayagar Deity of Sundara Vinayagar Koil, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ272
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was alienated to a temple for lighting purposes in the year 1951 as per Will dated 29.8.1951. The defendant attempted to construct a building. Hence a telegram was sent. The defendant sent a reply claiming title as if the defendant and her husband were in possession and there was an arrack shop run by the family members. Thereafter a notice was sent to deliver vacant possession. As there was no compliance the suit was filed.2. In the written statement the defendant claimed that her parents in law were in possession prior to 1970 and from 1970 onwards they put up two huts. In one of the huts, a liquor shop was run. In 1988 the hut was demolished and a regular construction was put up. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over 19 years. Therefore,...
Munusamy Nadar and anr. Vs. Ganapathy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ403
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by two tenants occupying portions of the same building against orders of eviction passed against them. The respondent landlord filed R. CO.P. No. 27 of 1992 against the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1752 of 1997 for eviction on the ground that he required the property for the immediate purpose of demolition and putting up a new building in the site. His case was as follows: The revision petitioner became his tenant in respect of a portion of the building and the monthly rent was Rs. 150. The building was nearly 100 years old. The flooring wall and the roof were in a most dilapidated condition and the building required im-mediate demolition and reconstruction. He wanted to put up a new construction with a view to augment his income. He had been calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the building for the past over six months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Origi-nal Petition. The petitioner assured that he w...
G. Singaravel Naidu Vs. S. Govindasamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ556
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent filed O.S.No. 60 of 1981 before the District Munsif of Nagapattinam for a permanent injunction against the appellant.2. The case as set out in the plaint was as follows; The suit property which was classified as dry in the revenue records was purchased by the respondent under Ex.A-1 on 25.6.1973 from one Mangayarkarasi of Sikkal village and he had been in possession of the same by changing the patta and paying the kist due to the Government. The suit property had been fenced in its North, South and East and a way out to lead to the respondent's house portion on the West. There was a way to go to the tank which was on the southern side of the suit property. There were four coconut trees and bamboo clusters and the respondent recently raised plaintain saplings in the suit property. He was having his house and backyard just to the west of the suit property. The location of the suit property was shown...
Kaliya Perumal Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)32; 1998CriLJ1467
ORDER1. Petitioner Kaliya Perumal, in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is seeking the quashing of the F.I.R. registered in crime number 14 of 1996, by the respondent, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the S.C., S.T. Act for short, on the complaint given by one Thenmozhi wife of one Haridoss. 2. The grounds on which, this application has been filed are two fold : (i) The averments in the F.I.R. would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C., S.T. Act and mere calling of the caste name by itself would not amount to dishonouring the caste to which the complainant belongs; (ii) Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She married a person by name Haridoss, who belongs to Yadhava Community. Therefore, the complainant becomes a member of the Yadhava Community family and that too, the said husband of the complainant is t...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Puthuthottam Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: [2002]256ITR769(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J. 1. This revision, at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the order dated December 24, 1992, of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 (for short 'the Tribunal'), and made in A.T.A. No. 44 of 1992 relatable to the assessment year 1991-92. 2. The assessee-company-Tvl. The Puthuthottam Estates Ltd., at No. 10, Damu Nagar, Puliakulam, Coimbatore-641 045, it appears, claimed legal expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000 by way of deduction under Section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act No. V of 1955, for short 'the Act'), in the process of computation of the income for the said assessment year 1991-92. The said legal expenses, it appears, were incurred in protecting the interests of the estate. 3. There were certain loans to be discharged by the estate. Towards the discharge of the loan so incurred by the estate, it was decided by the assessee to sell a parcel of the estate and thereby discha...
Management, Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ640Mad
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner Tamil Nadu Agricultural University which has Agricultural Research Station at Velayuthapuram. Kovilpatti, is aggrieved by the order made by the Commissioner of Labour on December 23, 1987 under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act which order was made on an application filed by the Secretary of the Kovilpatti Agricultural University Workers Union.2. The application was for a decision on the question as to whether Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University at Velayudhapuram would come under the definition of 'shop' contained in Section 2(16) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.3. The Commissioner has held that the Research Station does not fall within the definition of shop as defined in the Act, after rejecting the preliminary objection that had been raised by the University to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 will have no application in view of Section...
Tan India Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC311(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J. 1. Desirable it is, to dispose of these revisions--the former and latter ones, being filed at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue respectively--by a common order, inasmuch as the points or issues involved are common relatable to the assessment year 1988-89.2. The assessee-company Tvl. Tan India Limited, Kumarapa-layam are manufacturers of cement. The cement manufactured by them, it is said, are sold intra-State and inter-State. The head office of the assessee-company is located at Kumarapalayam. It is having its factory at Katterikuppam. It is having a branch at Palghat in Kerala State.3. During the assessment year 1988-89, it appears, the ultimate buyers at Kerala State placed specific orders at Palghat branch for delivery of cement to them. The orders so placed at the branch at Palghat, it appears, had been transmitted to the Head Office at Kumarapalayam. The Head Office, in turn, it is said, directed the factory to effect despatches in conformity with t...
A. Thambiran Naicker Vs. A. Sambasivam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ98
P. Sathasivam, J.1. First defendant in O.S.No. 1985 of 1977 on the file of First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant. First respondent/ plaintiff in the said suit filed the same for partition and separate possession of his l/4th share in the suit properties. The court below passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 5/ 16th share in the property mentioned in Ex.B-4 and l/3rd share of other properties in favour of the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first defendant has filed the present appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder: The plaintiff and 2nd defendant are the sons of deceased Arumuga Naicker through his second wife, namely, the third defendant. The first defendant is the son of the said Arumuga Naicker through his deceased first wife. The above said Arumuga Naicker married the third defendant in the year 1938 after demise of his first wife in 1935. The father of the plaintiff ...
Tenkasi Senkunda Mudaliar Samudayam Through Its Representative Tenkasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ658
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants.2. The suit was filed for declaration that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs Samudayam and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the joint possession of the suit properties by the plaintiffs and to frame a scheme to administer the suit properties and for removal of the defendants from the post of trustees.3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The properties belonged to Senkunda Mudaliar Samudayam at Tenkasi and the surrounding 56 villages. Since the suit properties are situate at Courtallam and Senguntha Mudaliar residing at Tenkasi nearer to it, were managing the properties. The Copper Plate inscription of the year 887 shows that the Senguntha Madam belongs to. Sengunthar community living in Tenkasi and 56 villages. Donations are collected from the community living in 56 villages for the improvement of the suit properties. The Tenkasi Senguntha Mudaliars added the word 'Thenkasi' t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »