Chennai Court February 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.
E. Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. Abdul Jaffar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC85
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge dated 5.9.1991 dismissing C.M.A. No. 837 of 1991 thereby confirming the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby declining to set aside the exparte decree passed in the matter. Aggrieved against the rejection of the application to set aside the exparte decree, the appellants filed, as noticed earlier, C.M.A. No. 837 of 1991. The learned single Judge was not inclined to agree with the reasons assigned by the appellants for the non-appearance and therefore dismissed the appeal. Hence the above letters Patent Appeal.2. Even at the initial stage, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent, raised an objection on the maintainability of the appeal relying upon the decision reported in Resham Singh Pyara Singh v. Abdul Sathar, : (1996)1SCC49 where...
The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Krishna Water Supply Project ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ1
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 7.2.1996 rendered by the learned single Judge on Writ Petition Nos. 9167 to 9175 and 9260 to 9277 of 1995.2. The petitioners sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Krishna Water Wupply Project Unit IV, Tiruvallor, Chingleput M.G.R. District to furnish a certified copy of the award dated 30th November, 1987. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition in the following terms:7. However, in this case, we are not at this stage concerned with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act. We are concerned only with regard to the limited prayer of the petitioners to furnish a copy of the award to each of them, which according to the petitioners, they are entitled to. Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed under Section 55(1) of the Act states that the award shall be in the prescribed form. The Collector...
Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)89
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 19 of 1981 dt. 30th March, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to depreciation and/or development rebate as claimed in respect of asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the deduction of the entire sum of Rs. 55,000 being the contribution to the Paddy Processing Research Centre ?'2. The assessee is a company, whose shares are wholly held by the State Government of Tamilnadu. The business of the assessee, as its name indicates, is to ensure supply of essential goods. One of the issues that arose for consideration related to the claim for depreciation and development r...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR401(Mad)
K.A. THANIKKACHALAM J. - In pursuance of the direction given by this court in T.C.P. No. 19 of 1981, dated March 30, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to depreciation and/or development rebate as claimed in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the deduction of the entire sum of Rs. 55,000 being the contribution to the paddy processing research centre ?'The assessee is a company, whose shares are wholly held by the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The business of the assessee, as its name indicates, is to ensure supply of essential goods. One of the issues that arose for consideration related to the claim fo...
S. Udayakumar, First Ito Vs. Abbas Ali and Co. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR751(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. Both these appeals are disposed of together since the parties are the same and the point is common. Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1987 is directed against the order of acquittal dated March 31, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Madurai, In C.C. No. 51 of 1985. Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1987 is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the very same magistrate in C.C. No. 52 of 1985 on the very same date. 2. The material averments in both the complaints arising out of these two cases in C.C. Nos. 51 of 1985 and 52 of 1985 are as follows : The first accused is a partnership firm which continued up to October 3, 1979, and after the death of one partner, viz., I. Abbas Ali, it was succeeded by I. Abbas Ali and Co., with the second accused to the seventh accused as partners. The business done by the first accused firm is the purchase and sale of iron and steel materials. The second accused to the seventh accused are partners in the f...
G. Varadan Vs. the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC723; (1997)IMLJ353
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the order R.O.C.608/86-A1 dated 25.3.1988 under which the petitioner's services were terminated almost after a period of 21 years2. Briefly stated, the relevant and necessary facts landing to the filing of the writ petition are the following :-The petitioner was selected for the post of Typist by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 1967 and was appointed as Typist in the Judicial Department of Tiruchirapalli District with effect from 13.2.1967. He has passed typewriting lower examination in English and completed his probation on 1.7.1971 and thus became an approved Probationer. He was not entitled to draw any increment in the time scale till he qualifies himself in typewriting higher grade in English. Having become an approved probationer, he has discharged duties as a typist satisfactorily.3. The petitioner could not clear the higher examination in Englis...
S.V. Periasamy and Sons by Its Partner S.V. Periasamy Nadar and ors. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ420
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 71 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif's Court), Tuticorin, are the revision petitioners. First respondent herein filed the above eviction petition on the ground that the tenants have defaulted in payment of rent and the said default is wilful. It is also alleged that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. Eviction was also sought on various other grounds including acts of waste, acts of nuisance, claiming permanent tenancy without any bona fides etc. The last three grounds referred to above were found against the landlord even by Rent Controller, and the matter was not agitated before the Appellate Authority also on those grounds. The only ground for eviction which found favour with the Rent Controller was that the revision petitioners have committed wilful default and that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. The finding was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is that judgme...
Krishnammal Vs. Periasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ309
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Appellant is the legal heir of the deceased defendant in O.S.No. 476 of 1989, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk.2. Suit filed by respondent (plaintiff) was one for declaration that the suit property is a common pathway belonging to both plaintiff and defendant, and consequently, to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the same, and also for a mandatory injunction to remove a septic tank which was constructed within the pathway.3. Defendant disputed all the claims of plaintiff.4. It is better to summarise what is stated in the pleadings.5. It is said that the suit property is a common lane and a rough plan was also produced along with the plaint, showing the location. Respondent's house is situated on the southern side of the common lane, and defendant's house is situated on the northern side. It is said that the plaintiff's house is more than 100 years old, and d...
K. Balakrishna Rao Vs. Southern Railway and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ298
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed by the petitioner who is conducting a Vegetarian Light Refreshment Room in Platform No. 2, at Madras Egmore Railway Station, alleging that after the period of licence expired on 31.7.1996, the respondent herein issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Petitioner was directed to explain why action should not be taken against him for eviction. An explanation was offered by the petitioner as per his written statement dated 26.8.1996. According to him, he has paid a sum of Rs. 12,000 on 2.4.1996 being the licence fee for the year 1996-97 and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a unauthorised occupant. The respondent, as per Order dated 2.9.1996, rejected the objection, and, by a reasoned Order, held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted, and it was declared that he and other persons who are in occupation of the said premises should vacate within 15 days fro...
Vediammal and ors. Vs. M. Kandasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ529
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 337 of 1985, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Harur, are the appellants.2. Suit filed by them was to declare their title to 1-17 acres of land which is more specifically described in the plaint schedule. It is their case that they purchased the property as per sale deed dated 29.5.1974 from Chinnappa Gounder, Sevatha Gounder and Raja Gounder. It is further said that even though the sale deed refers to only one acre of land, in fact they obtained possession of 1-17 acres, and ever since the sale deed of 1974, they came into possession of the property, and the same was within the boundaries described in the sale deed. It is further said that the property has also been sub-divided and the said 1 acre, 17 cents has been given sub-division numbers, and they are also paying revenue to the Government. Cause of action was stated to be that defendants 2 to 4, who are previous owners have instigated first defendant to trespass into the portion a...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »