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.
Arumuga Udayar Vs. Swamiyar Alias Ramasamy Udayar and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC612
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 29.9.1988 passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No. 1182 of 1980 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No. 117 of 1977 on 8.5.1980. The said suit was filed by the appellant herein for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit scheduled properties on the ground that the suit properties are the joint family properties and he, being one of the co-parceners, is entitled to l/4th share. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share as in a family arrangement, he had been given lands equivalent to his share and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 10,000 and a house had been given to him.2. The trial Court, on the basis of the Pleadings of the parties, raised the following issues:-'1. Whether the B and C Schedule properties are joint family properties?2. Whether the properties purchased by the 1st defendant were pu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirupathur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1997
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)346
ORDERN. V. BALASUBRAMA1WAM J.This is a petition filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the grant of depreciation at 15 per cent on the plant and machineries which do not come into contact with corrosive chemicals in a sugar factory is not a mistake apparent from records and that the issue. being a debatable one, cannot be rectified under s. 154 ?'.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and allied products. In the original assessment for the asst. yr. 1983-84, the AO granted depreciation on the machineries which are put into use in the sugar factory at a higher rate of 15 per cent while those machineries which do not come into contact with corrosive chemicals were eligible for depreciation at the ...
Maladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. M/S. Tuber Pharma Chemicals ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad322
ORDERAK. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By a deed of mortgage dated 30-3-1977 for Rs. 28.80 lakhs, deeds of modification dated 31-3-1978 and 3-3-1979. deed of agreement dated 18-2-1987 and deed of modification dated 28-1-1487 for Rs. 38,80 lakhs. M/s. Tuber Pharma Chemicals Limited, Ranipet (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Petitioner) has mortgaged the lands, buildings and premises together with all plant and machinery in favour of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for the due repayment to the Corporation of the principal amount with interest, commitment charges, sundry dues, expenses and other charges as provided therein, and also undertaken to comply with several terms and conditions stipulated therein. On 24-5-1990, the Corporation issued a legal notice fore-closing the loan and calling upon the writ petitioner to pay the Corporation within 15 days of receipt of the said notice the sum of Rs. 77.11.350.07., being the entire ...
Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran Vs. Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad385
ORDERShivraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the appellant in person and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. In this Appeal, the Appellant has questioned the corrertness of the order dt. 21-7-1989 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7030 of 1989. In the writ petition the appellant challenged the notice No. B 3/41140/89 dt. 11-4-1989, raising several questions of law, principal questions being (1) the respondent could not have issued the impugned order after a period of 141/2 years, (2) the respondent had no authority to issue a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned single Judge in the order under appeal has stated that S. 52 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 is valid and in that view he dismissed the writ petition.2. The appellant in his arguments reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. In his arguments he elaborated in support of his contentions. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted, that the impugned notice wa...
Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Tuber Pharma Chemicals Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas580(Mad)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. By a deed of mortgage dated March 30, 1977, for Rs. 28.80 lakhs, deeds of modification dated March 31, 1978, and March 3, 1979, deed of agreement dated February 18, 1987, and deed of modification dated January 28, 1987, for Rs. 38.80 lakhs, Tuber Pharma Chemicals Limited, Ranipet (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petition'), has mortgaged the lands, building and premises together with all plant and machinery in favour of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), for the due repayment to the Corporation of the principal amount with interest, commitment charges, sundry dues, expenses and other charges as provided therein, and also undertaken to comply with several terms and conditions stipulated therein. On May 24, 1990, the Corporation issued a legal notice foreclosing the loan and calling upon the writ petitioner to pay the Corporation within 15 days of receipt of the said notice the sum of Rs. 77,1...
M/S Udipi Hotel Sudha Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ219Mad
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge, Madras dated October 12, 1987 in E.S.I. O.P. No. 70/1985. 2. The petitioner in his petition contends as follows : By notification dated April 3, 1976 and December 22, 1976, the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') has been extended to Hotels, Restaurants and other establishments, where there are more than 20 persons employed. The petitioner is covered under the same. A code number has been allotted to the petitioner and they were asked to implement the provisions of the Act with effect from January 16, 1977. The respondent has issued a show cause notice dated April 6, 1984 demanding payment of contribution for the period from January 16, 1977 to December 31, 1977 on ad hoc basis and on the basis of the Inspector's Report. The petitioner has sent a reply to the same. The copy of the report of the Inspector has not been provided to the petitioner in spite of his request. The addi...
P. Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC157
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. This is a public interest litigation filed by One P. Mohan Town Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist) Madurai seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from evicting any occupant in any slum area in the City of Madurai Nambinagar, Hiranagar, Hiranagar Vaikalkarai, Thideernagar 6th Block, Thideer Nagar, Burma Nagar, Alaudin Thoppu, Subramaniapuram, Kamarajapuram and East Madurai without following the directions of the Supreme court dated 17.10.1985 made in W.P. No. 3695 of 1983.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder:-According to him, the people are residing in the above referred areas for a long time and some of them as many as from decades. The third respondent, namely, Madurai Corporation itself had recognised their existence and have provided for electric lights and sanitary facilities. They are also collecting property tax and have installed separate electric meters for consumption ...
P.S. Muthuswamy Kounder Vs. P.S. Ramalingam and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC303
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two appeals may be dealt with together since they arise out of a common suit, one filed by the first defendant, the State Bank of India, Thiruppapuliyur Branch in O.S. No. 1612 of 1978 (S.A. No. 953 of 1984) and the other filed by the second defendant in the very suit (S.A. No. 1666 of 1983), the defendants having lost their claims even before the First Appellate Court. To appreciate the relevant aspects of the claim projected now before this court, certain relevant facts alon may be adverted to. The state Bank of India, Thiruppapuliyur Branch, obtained a decree for Rs. 96,036.44 in O.S. No. 188 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, in enforcement of an equitable mortgage created by the second defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 1666 of 1983, borrowing large sums of money. When execution proceedings were about to be initiated, the brothers of the appellant in S.A. No. 1666 of 1983, who are the sons of Sambasiva Gounder, filed the present suit O.S. N...
Sourashtra Brahmana Dharma Paripalana Sabha Through Its Honorary Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ324
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 64 of 1992, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Melur, is the appellant.2. Relevant facts as alleged in the plaint may be summarised as follows:The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The property is used as a meeting hall of the plaintiff's sabha. The property is attached Sri Srinivasaperumal Temple and they lie together. It is said that the temple and the property are lying as one block and have been exempted from property from the year 1956 onwards. While so, a notice was received by plaintiff under Section 228 and 442 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, whereunder the schedule property was described as a 'Kalyana Mandapam'. It is said that the plaintiff is not using the said as a 'Kalyana Mandapam' nor is it used for carrying on any manufacturing, trade or in any other way, so that rubbish is accumulated in large quantities. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the notice in question is invalid and arbitrary, and...
Ramesh Enterprises and anr. Vs. Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ199
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The second appeal is filed by defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 6804 of 1981, on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Madras. The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff - Temple represented by its Executive Officer. He filed the suit for recovery of possession, making eight defendants as parties. It is alleged in the plaint that the first defendant is a tenant of the schedule properties on his paying a monthly rent of Rs. 200. Plaintiff - temple is exempted from the provisions of Rent Control Act and, therefore, the tenancy is governed by Transfer of Property Act only. It is further said that defendant 2 onwards are occupying different portions of the Schedule building as sub-tenants under first defendant. In paragraph 4, it is said that before the institution of the suit, the Trust Board was reconstituted, and first 1 defendant was informed that it is exempted from the purview of Rent Control Act. First defendant, admitting his guilt of earning of more th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »