Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Janab K. Mohamed Hussain, Commissioner and Receiver for the Estate of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC573
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the 6th plaintiff who lost before both the courts below.2. The suit was filed for restraining the defendants 1 to 62 by means of a permanent injunction from harvesting the standing and future crops and removing the entire yield from the thrashing floor without delivering the landlord's share at the thrashing floor. The case of the plaintiffs, was that the lands in question are owned by the plaintiffs, that defendants 63 to 67 represent the share of Annathane Chathiram at Sivalaneri which performs Annathana Charities, that the plaintiffs have 100- 1/2 share and defendants 63 to 67 have got 43- 1/2 shares out of the total of 114 shares, that defendants 1 to 62 cultivate various plots of lands as indicated in the plaint and at the time of harvest, the tenants are bound to give advance information to the plaintiff about the date of harvest and divide the produce at the thrashing floor from out of yield after payment of Kanganam a...
Tag this Judgment!E.P. Subramanian Vs. G.K. Palaniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ476
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though notice was served on the respondent, he has not entered appearance. He was called absent.2. This revision is directed against the order of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode, in LA. No. 152 of 1994 in O.S. No. 37 of 1993, dated 9.3.1994. The petitioner filed O.S. Njo.37 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, contending inter alia that the respondent second defendant G.K. Palanisamy, who is none other than his own son-in-law, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner induced him to invest his hard earned money from his agricultural holdings in Star Fish Tube Well Firm and three other firms, that he is also involved in borrowing from banks for purchase of machinery, etc. The respondent herein did not submit any correct and proper account in spite of repeated demands. Consequently, difference of opinion arose in 1988 and on the petitioner's insistence, he was released from one of the firms. The petitioner further contended that the sec...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagappan Vs. P. Subbarayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ574
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 68 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam, is the appellant.2. The suit filed by him was one for partition claiming one-third share in the plaint items. The material averments, which are necessary for the proper disposal of the second appeal, could be summarised as follows.3. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of the late Packirisami Pillai, a native of Thillaiyadi village. It is said that he possessed vast items of properties and he left for foreign countries, while he was young and came back to start a small business, which he was doing for some years. Apart from the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, he had one more son, who is not a party to the litigation. Besides, he had a daughter, who was given in marriage. The 2nd defendant in the suit is their mother.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is a graduate teacher, decently employed and the plaintiff is conductor in Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!D. Doraisamy Vs. the Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ483
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a carpentry instructor in the first respondent Panchayat Union, has filed the present writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C.A. No. 2/5099/94, dated 11.3.1996.2. The petitioner states that the Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union has established Carpentary and Blacksmith Production Centre at Samudram under the TRYSEM Scheme within the limits of Nallavanpalayam Panchayat, that after the office hours night watchman used to take care of the Unit, that the said Unit was broken open and theft had been committed on 2.7.1994, that a police complaint had been lodged by the petitioner at the first itself and later by the 1st respondent, that the Thiruvannamalai Taluk Rural Station (Law and Order) had registered a crime, that the petitioner was placed under suspension for certain alleged lapses on his part leading to theft, that on 26.7.1994 charges were framed against the...
Tag this Judgment!Kannamma Vs. Y. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: I(1997)DMC652
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Respondent in H.M.O.P. No. 18 of 1991, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court. Poonamallee, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner in the said H.MO. P. (husband) filed the same for divorce on the ground that the wife deserted him without any reasonable cause. On her entering appearance, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting interim alimony and litigation expenses for herself and her children. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 600/- per month towards the maintenance of the wife and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month for each child towards their maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 14.2.1991, and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. That order was passed on 8.11.1995.3. Against that order, a revision was taken to this Court in C.R.P. No. 1063 of 1996. Jagadeesan, J. dismissed the same even at the stage of admission, on the ground that he did not find any illegality in the order. But, while dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Ammal Vs. the District Revenue Officer and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC739; (1998)IMLJ258
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent in his T.R.No. 50/90 (A8) dated 14.4.1988 confirming the order of the 1st respondents in his S.R.T.R.No. 4/92, dated 10.1.1993 and to quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to record the petitioner's name as cultivating tenant in respect of lands at S.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 in Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy District measuring to an extent of 2.66 acres.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are these. The fourth respondent, Sri Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathi Mutt, Kumbakonam is the owner of the lands at S.F.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 to an extent of 2.66 acres at Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy Taluk, the said lands were originally let out to the father of the 5th respondent one Muthuraja. Subsequently, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)314; [1999]236ITR51(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the CIT, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras under s. 256(2), of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing to bifurcate the terminal gains into long-term capital gains pertaining to land and short-term capital gains pertaining to superstructure ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. A plot of land was allotted to him in March, 1978, and the assessee started construction of the building during March, 1985 and completed the construction in 1987. The assessee sold the property on 23rd September, 1987 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000. During the asst. yr. 1988-89 the assessee returned the capital gains arising on the sale of the land and building owned by him and claimed exemption under s. 80-I of the Act with reference to the capital gains arising on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khivaraj Motors Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)700; [1997]227ITR473(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1979-80 for the opinion of this Court 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 and having regard to the provision of s. 40A(8) r/w Expln. (b) to the said section, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was not justified in disallowing the interest paid to the directors on their current running accounts with the assessee-company under s. 40A(8) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee-company was a private limited company, but because its turnover had exceeded rupees one crore, it is deemed to be a public limited company. During the asst. yr. 1977-78, interest accrued and became due to the four directors, Khivaraji Chordia, Devarajji Chordia, Prafulchand Chordia and Sainikraj Chordia, to the extent of Rs. 4,41,450. For the asst. yr. 1978-79 interest accrued an...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsa Patel and Two ors. Vs. S. Balakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC367
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. All the four appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise out of a suit filed by the two respondents in the appeals, against the appellants and two others, who had remained ex pane in the proceedings, seeking delivery of possession of the suit property, arrears of rent from 1.1.1975 to 31.12.1976, damages for use and occupation from 1.1.1977 to 29.4.1977 and for payment of future damages at the rate of Rs. 375 per month. In the suit, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 36 of 1989 and L.P.A. No. 37 of 1989 was the 5th defendant and the appellants in L.P.A. No. 39 of 1989 and 40 of 1989 were defendants 1 and 2 Defendants 3 and 4, are said to be the sub tenants of defendants 1 and 2, and they remained ex parte through-out the proceedings. The suit was filed originally against the first four defendants only. On defendants 1 and 2 filing a written statement stating that it was the fifth defendant who is the legatee under a Will of the original lessee, that the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Collector Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and Fi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC539; (1997)IMLJ512
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer/Sub- Collector, Tindivanam, is the appellant herein. The above appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. No. 9 of 1983 dated 11.8.1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.2. At the instance of the 6th respondent, certain proposals were made for acquisition of lands of an extent of 2.44 acres in R.S. No. 236, etc., for the construction of Bus Depot to the 6th respondent/Corporation. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11.06.1980 and the same was approved by the Government in GO. Ms. No. 623, Transport, dated 23.05.1980. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the draft direction under Section 7 of the Act have been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 15.07.1981 and duly approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 726, Transport, dated 26.07.1981. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »