Chennai Court June 1997 Judgments
Vasantha and Others Vs. M. Senguttuvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC186; (1997)IIMLJ576
ORDER1. Second Appeal No.314 of 1986 arises from O.S.No.1482 of 1981 a suit for specific performance filed by the appellants Second Appeal No. 2101 of 1986 arises O.S.No. 197 Of 1981, filed by the defendant in O.S. 1482 of 1981. It was a suit for recovery of the property from the appellants. Both the suits were tried jointly, and evidence was taken in O.S.No. 197 of 1981, i.e., the suit filed by the respondent in both the appeals. In this judgment reference to parties will be according to their rank in O.S.No. 1482 of 1981, which relates to Second Appeal No. 314 of 1986, in which the plaintiffs in O.S. 1482 of 1981 are the appellants. 2. The plaint property admittedly belonged to the defendant, respondentherein. On 29.1.1978, an agreement for sale was executed between theparties. The plaintiff M.S. Mani agreed to purchase the plaint scheduleproperty for a total consideration of the Rs. 3,180 and paid and advance of Rs.1,000. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Asirvadam Samuel Nadar Vs. Raja Jothi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC137; (1997)IIMLJ449
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 757 of 1981, on the file of District Munsif's Court at Srivaikuntam, is the appellant herein.2. The above suit was filed by one Kovil Pillai Nadar, brother of the appellant, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and to allot one half share in those items. It is averred in the plaint that the schedule items originally belonged to one Issaku Nadar, father of plaintiff and defendant/ appellant. The acquirer died about 50 years prior to the institution of the suit. It is further'stated that Issaku Nadar as well as his children are Christians, and the acquirer died intestate, leaving behind his wife Nesamani Ammal. Apart from plaintiff and defendant/appellant the acquirer had also one more son by name Samidas Nadar and daughter by name Pushpakani Ammal, Samidas Nadar died unmarried and issue less. On the death of Issaku Nadar, the properties developed as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act, the widow taking one-third share, an...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kuppuswamy Vs. Kanagalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC431; (1997)IIMLJ602
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Judgment-debtor in O.P. No. 358 of 1988, on the file of Additional Family Court Judge, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner herein filed the above petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Pending litigation, respondent herein moved applications as I.A. Nos. 153 and 154 of 1988, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. After hearing both sides, an order was passed on 11.10.1989, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem from 1.1.1989 till the disposal of the main petition, and also Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses. A month's time was granted for payment of the same, which was subsequently extended on the application of the petitioner.3. Inspite of the time being granted, petitioner did not pay the amount and, therefore, due to non-compliance of the Court's direction, the main O.P. itself was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent also moved the...
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal Vs. Joseph Sam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ605
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Second respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 4229 of 1982, on the file of IX Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras (Rent Controller) is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction petition was filed by first respondent herein on two grounds, namely, (1) that the first respondent, who is the sole tenant of the schedule premises, has committed wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) he has also unauthorisedly sub-let the building to respondents 2 to 6. During the pendency of the proceeding, the original tenant died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents 7 to 11. It is said that the (deceased) tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.12.1952 onwards, though he restricted his claim for the period from 1.10.1960 to 31.7.1982. This, according to the landlord, is wilful and wanton default, which makes the tenant liable to be evicted from the building. It is said that there is no written consent from the landlord to sub-let the building, an...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha and ors. Vs. M. Senguttuvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ576
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second Appeal No. 314 of 1986 arises from O.S. No. 1482 of 1981, a suit for specific performance filed by the appellants. Second Appeal N6.2101 of 1986 arises from O.S. No.197 of 1981, filed by the defendant in O.S. 1482 of 1981. It was a suit for recovery of the property from the appellants. Both the suits were tried jointly, and evidence was taken in O.S. No. 197 of 1981, i.e., the suit filed by the respondent in both the appeals. In this judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in O.S. No. 1482 of 1981, which relates to Second Appeal No. 314 of 1986, in which the plaintiffs in O.S. 1482 of 1981 are the appellants.2. The plaint property admittedly belonged to the defendant, respondent herein. On 29.1.1978, an agreement for sale was executed between the parties. The plaintiff M.S. Mani agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,180, and paid an advance of Rs. 1,000. As per the terms of the agreement, th...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shobha Saree Centre.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mad)283
ORDERP. S. KALSIAN, A.M. :These two appeals by the Revenue relate to asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 and arise out of the order of the CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 18th February, 1989. The appeals are decided by a common consolidated order as common question of law and facts are involved.2. The AO found that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 1,56,463 and Rs. 1,91,940 on the borrowed funds for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. The AO also found that the assessee-firm was claiming huge interest year after year and no interest was charged on advances made to other concerns owned by the close relatives of its partners by diverting the loans raised by it. The AO therefore, disallowed interest payments to the tune of Rs. 57,348 in the asst. yr. 1981-82 and interest of Rs. 1,01,466 in asst. yr. 1982-83 under consideration, considered as not relating to the assessees business. In appeal, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there is no direct nexus between the funds diverted to...
Tag this Judgment!Thankamma and ors. Vs. Santhakumari Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ129
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Respondents 5 to 9 in I.A. No. 311 of 1987 in O.S. No. 40 of 1976, on the file of District Munsif's Court at Padmanabhapuram, are the appellants before this Court.2. Plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed the suit O.S. No. 40 of 1976, for redemption. The mortgage is dated 21.11.1951. The nomenclature of the document is 'Otti' of the erstwhile Travancore area. Preliminary decree was passed on 12.7.1977, and two months' time was provided for deposit of the mortgage amount. As per the said preliminary decree, an amount of Rs. 2,290.73 was to be depos-ited. The mortgagees were not satisfied with the quantum of mortgage money payable to them and, therefore, filed A.S. No. 316 of 1977. There was no stay of proceedings. But, on 23.2.1983, the appellate court modified the preliminary decree passed, and an additional amount of Rs. 900 was directed to be deposited. To that extent, preliminary decree passed by the trial court was modified. Within three years, on...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Venkatesalu Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR293(Mad)
J. Kanakaraj, J.1. The appellant owns immovable properties at Coimbatore as karta of a Hindu undivided family. He had been filing voluntary returns under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the respondents had been accepting the returns and passing orders. For the assessment year 1984-85, the appellant filed a return on June 18, 1984, disclosing a net wealth of Rs. 3,17,800. The first respondent accepted the return, completed the assessment and passed orders under section 16(1) of the Act, by an order dated September 8, 1986. Similarly, for the assessment year 1985-86, a return was filed on November 29, 1985, disclosing a net wealth at Rs. 4,41,900 and the same was accepted and an order was passed on September 8, 1986. By a notice dated February 15, 1991, the first respondent invoked section 17 of the Act and proposed to assess the escaped wealth both for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. By a notice dated October 1, 1991, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Sivanandha Pipe Fittings Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex., Hosur.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT52(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. The appellant filed W.P. No. 567/84 seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27-12-1983 and for consequential directions. To understand the scope of the prayer in the said W.P., we have to look into the facts of the case. The Writ Petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of pipes (bevelled at ends), water well casing pipes, pipe bends, and ancillaries in their factory at Hosur. The Superintendent of the Central Excise had approved the classification under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners sought for re-classification under T.I. 26A(IV) of the Central Excise Tariff. A revised classification was approved by the Superintendent. Thereupon the petitioners lodged a claim on 26-8-1983 for refund of the amount erroneously paid for the period from 12-5-1981 to 28-8-1983. By an order dated 12-10-1983 the 2nd respondent ordered refund of Rs. 3,01,914.73 and sent a cheque for the said amount to the petitioner. After exercisin...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Venkataswami Chettiar Vs. A. Mariasusai and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC140; (1997)IIMLJ389
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the auction purchaser against the order dated 12.1.1994 by a single Judge of this court in C.M.A. No. 769 of 1993.2. A third Party, namely the first respondent in the Letters Patent Appeal, filed E.A. No. 487 of 1992 in E.P. No. 91 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for setting aside the auction in favour of the appellant under Order 21, Rule 89 and Under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.3. The case of the first respondent third party is that on 31.10.1988 a preliminary decree was passed for partition. The persons to whom the properties, including the auction property was allotted, offered to sell to him for a total sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The agreement was entered into on 10.6.1990. He paid Rs. 5,000 on that day and another sum of Rs. 60,000 on 16.7.1990. According to him, the third item, which was sold in auction to the appellant, alone would fetch Rs. 2,25,000. But in anothe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »