Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Seyade Beedi Co. Rep. by Its Partner T.E.S. Naina Mohamed Vs. Jeyagane ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC531
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. None appeared for the appellant, even though called twice, once in the forenoon and for the second time in the afternoon.2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. In this appeal, we will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit, C.S.No. 215 of 1981 for convenience.3. This appeal is by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.6.1989 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.215 of 1981.4. Briefly stated the facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, are the following. The plaintiff filed C.S.No.215 of 1981 seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade marks 'Seyadu Beedi' by using the offending 'Jeya Ganesh Beedi' by using the offending 'Jeya Ganesh Beedi' wrappers, both big and small, which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark and further restrain the defendant from passing of their beedies as the beedies o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayalakshmi Ammal Vs. S.M. Balasundaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ614
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second Appeal is by defendant in O.S. No. 8858 of 1972, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. The appeal was once heard, and, as per judgment dated 27.2.1996,1 set aside the concurrent judgments of both the courts below, and the second appeal was allowed. On that day, there was no appearance for the second respondent, and I heard the appellant alone. Thereafter, C.M.P. No. 9628 of 1996 was filed to re-open the case, stating that on the date when the second appeal was heard, learned Counsel for the second respondent herein could not appear, and in fact, even notice of second appeal was not served on them (respondents).2. Since I was convinced with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed insupport of that petition, I allowed the same and restored the second appeal to file. Thereafter, I heard the second appeal on merits. Learned Counsel on both sides were heard.3. Even though the plaintiffs claim various reliefs in the plaint, in this second appeal, we are conce...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by Its Power Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ32
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Respondents 2 and 3 in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1990, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Pollachi, are revision petitioners.2. One V. Balasubramnaiam, father of respondents 1 to 6 herein, filed the said eviction petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the following allegations: The landlords are owning a mill for deshelling groundnut. It is their family business. The existing place is quite insufficient for their business and, therefore, the landlord has to construct godowns and also drying yards petition mentioned premises alone is suitable place for locating the same, since it lies just adjacent to the petitioner's business place. Hence, the landlords require the petition mentioned building as additional accommodation for their business. They have to demolish and reconstruct the petitioned premises to make it suitable as additional accommodation for their business. It is further said that originall...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kandasamy Naicker Vs. Akkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ578
S.S. Subramani, J.1. 1st defendant in O.S. No. 227 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur is the appellant.2. The suit is one for partition.3. One Perumal Naicker had two sons Subba Naicker and Seeni Naicker. The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of Subba Naicker and 2nd plaintiff is one of his sons. Defendants 1 and 2 are also another son and daughter of Subba Naicker. Their mother Ananthammal died in the year 1986. It is admitted that Subba Naicker died some time in 1969. Seeni Naicker, the other son of Perumal Naicker died unmarried and issueless. In the year 1927, a partition was effected between Subba Naicker and Seeni Naicker, as evidenced by Ex. B-21. The properties allotted to Seeni Naicker were purchased by Subba Naicker on 29.9.1942, evidenced by Ex. A-1. It is the plaintiff's claim that after the death of Subba Naicker, the 1st defendant had been appropriating all the income and inspite of various demands made demanding their share, their due share has not been given t...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Gangathara Jawahar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ107
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the G.O. (1D) No. 44, dated 21.3.1996, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to renew the lease in respect of 50 acres of Reserve Forest at Kuthiraimolitheri adjoining Kanchinavilai Village, V.O.C. District.2. The respondents have filed a detailed counter. This Court issued rule nisi on 30.7.1996 and also granted interim stay in W.M.P. No. 13157 of 1996 on 30.7.1996. The respondents have filed W.M.P. No. 25857 of 1996 to vacate the order of interim stay granted in W.M.P. No. 13157 of 1996 on 30.7.1996. The W.M.Ps. were listed for hearing on 19.2.1997. At this stage, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing, as it was contended that the respondents have resumed the lands and possession of the land is also with the respondents.3. Mr. M. Sekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended...
Tag this Judgment!TuticorIn Stevedors Association Through Its Secretary Vs. M. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ347
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 458 of 1993, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant. Plaintiff is the sole respondent herein.2. He filed the above suit to declare that his date of birth is 30.3.1940, and consequently to grant a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from superannuating him from service before 30.3.1993, and to award costs.3. Material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:Respondent is an employee under the appellant/defendant working as shore labourer for 12 years prior to the filing of the suit. Like other dock workers, plaintiff was also brought under the administration of the defendant in the year 1981. In the year 1983, the dockworkers were asked to produce documentary evidence to prove their name, father's name and age for screening. At that time, plaintiff produced the voters' list which was the only document available with him. Plaintiff was not having any School Certificate or Birth Cert...
Tag this Judgment!Pattanswami Vs. Amirtha Jothi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad308; (1997)IMLJ435
ORDER1. The mailer arises under the Tami1 Nadu Buildings (Lease and Reni Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The above Civil Revision Petilion has been filedagainst the judgment and decree in R.C. A. No. 57 of 1993dated 6-3-1996 on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the order dated 13-8-1993 of the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in R.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1991. To condone the delay of 47 days in filing the revision, C.M.P. No. 13020 of 1996 has been filed.2. Notice was ordered in the condone delay petition on 30-10-1996 to the respondent returnable by four weeks. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance through M/s. K. V. Ananthakrishnan and V. Chandrasekar. The respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition 10 condone the delay.3. In ibis case, the judgment in the appeal was passed on 6-3-1996. The Copy Application was made on 7-3-1996. The copy was made ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.S. HussaIn Vs. Collector of Kanyakumari District and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad318
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's practice in Homoeopathy System of Medicine in Thiruvithan Code, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and to direct the 3rd respondent to deliver the articles seized under mahazar dated 7-2-1988 from the premises of Baragath Clinic, Tinivithan Code to the petitioner.2. The respondents have entered appearance through the Government Pleader. The respondents have not filed a counter in the writ petition despite they have been given sufficient time. Even at the lime of final hearing also, the respondents have not chosen to file their counter. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 18-1-1997, 20-1-1997, 4-2-1997 and 10-2-1997. Despite sufficient opportunity being given even after listing of the case for final disposal, the Government Advocate has not chosen to file counter nor did he make valid submissions. This has also been recor...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramaswamy Reddiar (Decd.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR148(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction by this court in T.C.P. No. 251 of 1980, dated November 4, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,543 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee returned a sum of Rs. 5,034 as income from interest received from certain parties. The assessee's premises and also the premises of certain other relatives of the assessee, like his father-in-law, brother-in-law, etc., were searched by the Department. The search revealed that the assessee was in possession of pronotes executed in favour of the assessee's relations, viz., Smt. Padmalochani Ammal (wife), Muthukumarappa Reddiar (father-in-law), Jayalakshmi Ammal (mother-in-law), Veerappa Raj...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramalakshmi Reddi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)154; [1998]232ITR281(Mad)
Abdul Hadi J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following four questions of law with reference to the assessment year 1975-76 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 46,731 is income liable to tax within the definition in the Income-tax Act 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that after the amendment of section 10(3) all receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature are exempt only to the extent of Rs. 1,000 in the light of the judgment of the High Court, in the case of CIT v. G. R. Karthiheyan : [1980]124ITR85(Mad) exempting the total receipts 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts although of a casual and non-recurring nature were income assessable under the head 'Other sources' 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there could be an assessment on any amount higher than the bona ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »