Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments
Marappa Gounder and Two ors. Vs. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ502
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 996 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Karur are the appellants before this Court.2. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit.3. Plaintiff in the above suit sought for a declaration of her title and possession over the plaint 'A' sched-ule properties and consequently for a grant of injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any manner interfering with her possession of 'A' schedule properties.4. Alternatively, it is claimed for a decree for partition of 'B' schedule properties into 3 equal shares and 1/3 share be allotted to her. She also prayed for mesne profits and costs. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows.5. Plaint A schedule properties are portions of B schedule property. It is averred that the B schedule properties are joint properties belonging to plaintiff's father Kaliappa Gounder and the predecessors of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.K. Kanagaraj and ors. Vs. Kamaraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ655
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The petitioners herein are not parties to the suit, but according to them, they are affected by the interim order passed by the court and inspite of the fact they have filed an impleading application before that court, the court has not passed any order on their application and at the same time has directed the local police to implement the-injunction order.2. The material facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of the revision may be summarised as follows:3. An area of 4 grounds and 1484 sq.ft. of land in Survey No. 4047/1 of Tondiarpet Village originally belonged to one Subramaniya Mudaliar and he sold a portion of the property and retained an area of 2.0240 grounds with him which continued in his possession till his death in the year 1962. It is stated that on his death, he left behind him his daughter-in-l...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jesu Thiagaraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ432
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court so issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (hereinafter referred to as SSLC) as 21.10.1114 Malayalam Era corresponding to 4.6.1939 instead of 7.5.1939.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here under:According to him, the petitioner is holder of M.A., M. Ed., and he was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School, Madathattu-vilai, Kanayakumari District in the year 1973. Since 1981 he was employed as post Graduate teacher in the same Higher Secondary School. He was born on 21.10.1114 (Malayalam Era). In all school certificate, his date of birth is correctly entered in Malayalam Era as 21.10.1114. However, while entering his date of birth in English Era it was wrongly entered as 7.5.1939 instead of 4.6.1939. The said mistake is crept in S.S.L.C. Book, wherein his date of birth is 7.5.1939 ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Premkumar Vs. Rajangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3288
ORDER1. This revision filed by the petitioner who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pandaloor Sub-Division, Nilgris is directed against the order in Cr. M.P. No. 3342 of 1995 in C.C. No. 224 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. V Tirunelveli dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under S. 245 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The only ground that was urged before the lower Court in the application for discharge is that, the complaint was not maintainable, since the prior sanction from the Government was not obtained before launching the prosecution under S. 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. This ground has been rejected by the lower Court on the ground that the question whether or not sanction is necessary would depend from the stage to stage and that it could be decided only after the trial is over. 3. Being aggrieved over this order, the present action has been resorted to by the petitioner by filing this revision before this Court. A few facts wo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.P.S.H. Sokkalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR981(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of s. 2(22)(e) and s. 2(32) of the IT Act, 1961, the shares in the name of Selva Saroja were beneficially held by her so as to attract the operation of s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual having 793 shares in the company called T.P. Sokkalal Ramsait Factory (P.) Ltd. The ITO in the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1973-74 noticed that in the account of the assessee with the company, there were net drawings of Rs. 87,000 which was claimed as trading advance. The ITO held that it is not the company's business to ply lorries or advance monies for purchase of lorries and the money of the company had been diverted for non-business use. He held that the assessee is a shareholder substantially interested in...
Tag this Judgment!Westinn Hospitality Services Limited Vs. Caeser Park Hotels and Resort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC149
ORDER1. C.S.No.5 of 1996 is filed by Westinn Hospitality Services Limited. Defendant therein Ceaser Park Hotels and Resorts Incorporated is the plaintiff in C.S. No.141 of 1996. The parties are hereinafter referred to as WHSL CPHR respectively. The suit by WHSL and purports to be under Sec. 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 alleging that there are groundless threats by CPHR in relation to the use of the mark WESTINN. That mark is not a registered trade mark in India. The mark is not claimed in relation to any goods but is claimed by CPHR as service mark. Service marks are not registerable under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.2. WHSL was initially incorporated in August, 1989 as Westinn Consultants Private Limited which name was changed in the year 1991 as Westinn Hospitality Services Limited. It has been using the words 'Westinn' as part of its corporate name from the year 1989. The company had been carrying on business of consultancy services for hotels and resorts...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)5; [1998]233ITR497(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment for the assessment year 1979-80, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that factory roads were entitled to depreciation as 'building' in the computation of profits from business 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received from SIPCOT would not go to reduce the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowance of depreciation 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on deposit with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board should be treated as income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of relief under section 80HH ?' 2. The assessee is a priv...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Joseph and 20 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC1
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These transfer applications have been posted before this Bench pursuant to the order of Jagadeesan, J. dated 19.3.1997, directing the Registry to get suitable directions from the Honourable Chief Justice for posting these applications before a Division Bench.2. These transfer applications, by the plaintiffs in different suits which were earlier transferred from the original side of this Court to the City Civil Court, Chennai, presumably pursuant to Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Madras City Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1995, seek retransfer of those suits from the City Civil Court to the Original side of this Court, on the ground that the very same Section 4(1) does not authorise transfers of such suits to City Civil Court.3. The said Section 4(1) runs as follows:- 'All suits pending in the High Courts on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Madras City Civil Court under the provisions of the Madras...
Tag this Judgment!United Credit Corporation and anr. Vs. Palaniandi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)600; 1997(2)CTC218
ORDER1. This revision filed by the petitioners is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3426 of 1995 in C.C. No. 604 of 1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchy rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners Under Section 258 of Criminal Procedure Code to discharge them.2. The only point that has been urged in this revision is the petitioners through the intimation, requested the bank to stop payment for the cheques issued by them on the reason that the complainant party did not handover the passbook to them and that the dishonour and that the cheques were returned only with the endorsement, payment stopped by the drawer and that therefore the Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not get attracted.3. This submission was rightly rejected by the trial court on the basis of the Judgment in Binary System Pvt. Ltd. v. Nobel Power Pvt. Ltd., Madras, 1992 L.W (Cri.) 307 in which is won held that the question as to whether the accused did not have sufficient funds ...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchy Constructions Co., a Firm of Engineering Contractors, by Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ435
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Tiruchi Construction Company is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the order of 2nd respondent dated 9.4.1986 terminating the contract, the petitioner has failed W.P. No. 11100 of 1986 with further prayer to refer the claims of the petitioner including the various clauses mentioned in the writ petition to arbitration as per Tamil Nadu Standard Specifications. Against the order of the second respondent dated 8.10.1986 demanding a sum of Rs. 2,70,177 being the excess amount for the completion of the unfinished work in the Agreement No. 15/83-84, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition namely W.P. No. 12247 of 1986. If the petitioner is able to succeed in the first writ petition, the notice impugned in the second writ petition has to be quashed, hence by the following order both the above writ petitions can be disposed of.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereun-der: The petitioner being successful tenderer, entere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »