Chennai Court September 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.
Amirtham Vs. Subbian and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC417
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff who failed before the lower court in O.S.No. 509 of 1981 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore has filed the above appeal.2. According to the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, the suit property belonged to the second defendant-society originally and the first defendant purchased the same from the society under the coveyance deed dated 18.3.1974 and he became the absolute owner of the property. That on 6.3.1980 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 33,000 and she paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 as advance. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the balance amount of Rs. 27,000 to the first defendant within a period of four months from the date of execution and the first defendant has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or to her nominees. It was further agreed that the plaintiff has to pay the amenity charges to the second d...
E. Thangasamy Raja Vs. the Executive Officer, Ettayapuram Selection Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ103
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified manda-mus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the impugned order in Na. ka. No. A1/783/96, dated 27.2.1997 and quash the same, and conse-quently direct the respondent to grant renewal of the Private Market Licence to the petitioner for running the private Market in Door Nos. 175 to 177 at ward VI in Ettayapuram Town Panchayat.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is running a Private Weekly Market in which people come and sell their sheep and goats. The market is situated in Door Nos. 175-177, Ward No. VI, Ettayapuram Town Panchayat, and it is being run by the petitioner for more than four decades and there has been no complaint whatsoever from any of the users of the market or from the respondent herein. It is said that the petitioner had applied for licence to run the private market and the same had...
Kandasamy Vs. Valluvar Financiers Represented by Its Managing Partner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ500
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the sides, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The revision has been filed against the order or arrest in E.A. No. 154 of 1994. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree was passed on 4.5.1991 and thereafter the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 371 of 1991 for arrest of both the principal-debtor and the guarantor, the petitioner being the guarantor. Subsequently, the principal-debtor took out Insolvency proceedings and the same is pending. In view of this, the decree-holder gave up the principal-debtor in the E.P. and proceeded against the petitioner alone. When the Insolvency proceeding against the principal-debtor is pending, the liability of the prin-cipal-debtor is under doubt and as such the decree Cannot be executed against the guarantor, the petitioner herein. Further, the principal-debtor himself has paid the decree amount. Having given up the prin-cipals-debtor, the decree-holder cannot pro...
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thudiyalu Assessment Circle, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC124
ORDERJudgement pronounced by J. Kanakaraj, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4470 of 1983 filed by the respondent herein seeking to quash a form 7 notice, dated March 5, 1983 issued by the appellants herein under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which plea was accepted by the learned single Judge and the proceedings of the appellants were quashed.2. The respondent (writ petitioner) was a partnership-firm, carrying on business in the manufacture of iron and steel. One Balaji Steels, Coimbatore another partnership-firm had been assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. they were in arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 9,37,911. This later firm was closed on October 19, 1979, One Ramkumar Gogia was one of the partners in the firm M/s. Balaji Engineering Works and Balaji Oil Mills. The ...
T.T.K. Pharma Limited, 6, Cathedral Road, Madras 600086 Vs. Ag. Robaph ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC108
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by R.R. Jain, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of a registered trade mark 'Ossopan' in Class 5. It is alleged that the appellant/defendant also started selling goods under the same trade mark by infringing the registered trade mark, hence the respondent filed a suit for injunction against the appellant/defendant essentially under section 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to the Use Certificate, Trade Mark Registration Number, Date, Publication in the journal as well as the items covered under the said trade mark.2. It is alleged that the suit was filed on the basis of journal entry, consequently, the description of specified goods as specified therein was incorporated in paragraph 27(a) of the plaint. However, later on during pendency of the suit, the respondent came to know that the correct description of specified items referred to in the registration certificate itself is some...
Adinakarthar Chinthamani Athithanar Madam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: [2000]246ITR142(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the assessee, who was unsuccessful before the Commissioner, in his revision petition under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act for revising the order of the Assessing Officer who had made an assessment of the assessee's agricultural income for the assessment year 1985-86 under section 17(4) of the Act. 2. This petition has to be dismissed on the short ground that the impugned order has not caused prejudice to the assessee, in view of the express provision to that effect in the second proviso to section 34(1), as held by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Seshadrinathan (N. N.) v. State of Madras : [1966]60ITR482(Mad) which held that the decision of the Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Tribune Trust [1948] 16 ITR 214 has impliedly overruled the decision of a Special Bench of five judges of this court, in the case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty v. CIT : [1939]7ITR263(Mad) . 3. The Privy Council in ...
A. Pauliah Vs. T. Gnanasigamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ760
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the lower court in P.O.P. No. 20 of 1993, permitting the respondent to file appeal as indigent person.2. The petitioner has filed the suit O.S. No. 63 of 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000 with interest against the respondent and the suit has been decreed. The respondent intends to file an appeal against the said decree made in O.S. No. 63 of 1991 and the court-fee payable by him is Rs 1,842.50. The respondent is a poor man depending upon the very meagre income derived from the tailoring business. He had no means to pay the court-fees. The petitioner herein filed counteraffidavit in that O.P. stating that the respondent is earning Rs. 200 per day, and owns lands to an extent of 31 cents of coconut thope, and that from the said thope, the respondent is getting an income of Rs. 1,000 per month. The nondisclosure of the land in the schedule of assets by the respondent would disentitle him the relief...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›