Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
K. Zunaideen Vs. Ameena Begum and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC566; II(1998)DMC468; (1997)IIMLJ464
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Kanakaraj, J.1. This appeal is referred against the order of Principal Family Court, Madras in M.C.No. 159 of 1989. The claim before the Family Court was made by the wife and minor child, represented by the mother against theappellant herein under Section 125. Code of Criminal Procedure formaintenance.2. The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent took place on 21.2.1988 according to Muslim rites. When the first respondent was carrying the child of the appellant it said that the appellant demanded a dowry of Rs. 15,000 and since was not complied with, the appellant is said to have issued a notice containing certain allegations. A reply notice was also given. On 12.12.1988, the second respondent minor child was born. The appellant is said to have issued a notice stating that he had divorced the first respondent on 23.2.1989. The respondent stated in their petition that they had not property or income and they were unable to maintain themselve...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.R. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR402(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the share income arising to the minor sons of the assessee by their admission to the benefits of partnership in a firm cannot be included in the hands of the assessee as his parent under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83 ?' 2. At the time of hearing the tax case reference Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, stated that this court in the case of CIT v. P. Alwarsamy [1995] 211 ITR 353, has held that the income arising to the minor sons of the assessee as a result of their admission to the benefit of partnership in a firm is includible in the total income of the assessee after the amendment o...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Mohideen Vs. Habibunnissa (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ278
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In both these revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 890 of 1995 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 977 of 1990, on the file of IV Judge, Small Causes Court at Madras. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlady alleging that the building is required for the bona fide own occupation of her newly married son, who was examined as P.W. 1 in this case. The other revision, namely, C.R.P. No. 3444 of 1991 is against R.C.O.P. No. 3320 of 1985, which is an application for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlady. The agreed rent was Rs. 175. Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,638 per mensem. When the matter was taken in appeal, by tenant as well as landlady, fair rent was fixed at Rs. 1,408.2. In the eviction petition, the case of the landlady is that she needs the building bona fide for her own occupation, in the sense that her son who is a member of the family got married recently. The son has no other building of his own and, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!K. Zunaideen Vs. Ameena Begum and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ464
Kanakaraj, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of Principal Family Court, Madras in M.C. No. 159 of 1989. The claim before the Family Court was made, by the wife and minor child, represented by the mother against the appellant herein under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance.2. The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent took place on 21.2.1988 according to Muslim rites. When the first respondent was carrying the child of the appellant, it is said that the appellant demanded a dowry of Rs. 15,000 and since the same was not complied with, the appellant is said to have issued a notice containing certain allegations. A reply notice was also given. On 12.12.1988, the second respondent, minor child was born. The appellant is said to have issued a notice stating that he had divorced the first respondent on 23.2.1989. The respondents stated in their petition that they had no property or income and they were unable to maintain themselves. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Ameena Bi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ameer Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ320
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1459 of 1977, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, filed the above second appeal. She died later, and appellants 2 and 3 and 6th respondent have been impleaded as her legal representatives.2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for permanent injunction on the following allegations:Plaintiff purchased the property mentioned in the plaint, on 12.9.1974 as per Ex. A-1 and was in exclusive possession of the property. She is the second wife of one Sattar Khan. Before her marriage with Sattar Khan, her elder sister Zainub Bi was his wife. On the death of Zainub Bi, plaintiff married Sattar khan. It is further said that in the earlier marriage, Sattar Khan had a daughter, and she was given in marriage to one Sulaiman, and Sulaiman and his wife were residing in the suit property. It is said that Sulaiman's wife died, and afterwards Sulaiman is keeping first defendant as his mistress. Sulaiman, along with the first defendant, taking advantage of their ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Anbuthurai and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ4
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against granting permission to quarry sand in Nambi River as seen from the Tirunelveli Kattabomman District Gazette Notification, dated 30.9.1995, the petitioner for the cause of public interest has filed the present writ petition in W.P. No. 16671 of 1995 for quashing the said Gazette Notification dated 30.9.1995. On 5.12.1995 this Court has entertained the writ petition and also granted interim injunction in W.M.P. No. 26470 of 1995 and also issued a positive direction to the sixth respondent (P. Selvaraj - petitioner in W.P. No. 1008 of 1996) to forthwith stop quarrying operation. In view of the interim order by this Court as well as serious objections by the public, the District Collector, Tirunelveli-Kattabomman District by the impugned order dated 7.12.1995, cancelled the lease granted in favour of the sixth respondent in the said writ petition. The said order is being challenged in the later writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 1008 of 1996. Since both...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishna Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. Janakiammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ307
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2009 of 1981, on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. Suit filed by him was one for declaration that he is the real owner of the suit properties, and for the grant of a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with plaintiff's title to and possession of the suit properties in any manner whatsoever.2. Material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:Plaintiff and first defendant are brother and sister. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of 1st defendant. It is averred that plaintiff lost his wife as early as in the year 1942. Plaintiff has got sever children of whom two are sons and five are daughters. All of them are married and are well-settled in life. It is said that his sister has married one Krishna Gounder. First defendant is the second wife of Krishna Gounder. In his first marriage, he has a son by name Palaniappa. It is said that from the yea...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Collector and anr. Vs. Subramaniam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ211
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second Appeal No. 183 8 of 1989 arises from O.S. No. 643 of 1982, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Manamadurai. Second Appeal No. 1189 of 1996 arises from O.S. No. 212 of 1985, on the file of the same court.2. Parties herein will be referred to in this judgment according to their rank in O.S. No. 643 of 1982, out of which S.A. No. 1838 of 1989 arises.3. Material facts which arise for consideration in both these second appeals may be stated as follows:Plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from conducting re-sale of the prosophis trees in the schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that those trees belong to the State-1st defendant in the suit. It was duly proclaimed in the District Gazette and in dailies that the prosophis trees will be sold in public auction on 13.8.1982 by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, at the Taluk Office premises at Manamadurai. Wide publicity was also given regarding the sale, and the sale was cond...
Tag this Judgment!A. Duraiswami Vs. A. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ401
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1990, on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruppur, is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction was sought by respondent herein on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for a period of eight months at the rate of Rs. 700 per mensem. There was a further averment that the tenant has sub-let the building without the written consent of the landlord and that he has also committed acts of waste which has reduced the value and utility of the building permanently.3. The said allegations were seriously opposed by the revision petitioner. In his counter statement, he further said that he is not the real tenant, but his brother Kondappan is doing business under the name and style of 'A.K.N. Textiles', and he is not liable to pay rent much less arrears of rent. He further denied having sub-let the building. Regarding the allegations of waste, it was further contended that he has not done any act which h...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramanathan and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ406
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioners, four in number have joined together and filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 352 (Revenue), dated 4.3.1987 and the consequential notice of the 2nd respondent dated 25.11.1987 in No. 11638/87(H) and quash the same.2. An extent of 25.08 acres in Bodinaickenpatti, Karumpatti and Dasarahalli in Harur Taluk of Dharmapuri District were the subject matter of assignment during the year 1922 and 1923 in favour of Adi-Dravidars. The details of the land and assignees are hereunder:_______________________________________________________S.No. Extent Name of the Assignee_______________________________________________________1 20/1 D.71 135/36 Melacheyan2 26/1 D.46 226/32 Molai3 26/2 1.35 -do- -do-4 26/3 1.44 -do- -do-5 26/4 4.44 41/33 Perumal Chetty6 33/3 1.57 10/33 Kuppan7 33/4 6.98 41/33 Perumal Chetty8 42/2 1.13 -do- -do-________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »