Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
R.M. Adaikalavan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR663(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The correctness of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of R. Anandakumar & Ors. vs . State of Tamil Nadu : [1992]196ITR219(Mad) , having doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. P. R. Narayanan & Ors. vs . State of Tamil Nadu : [1993]199ITR155(Mad) , these cases have been referred to the Full Bench for determining the true scope of s. 65(3) of the TN Agrl. IT Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as it stood prior to its deletion by the Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1992 w.e.f. 1st April, 1992. 2. Sec. 65 of the Act deals with composition of Agrl. IT Act. Sub-s. (3) thereof, prior to its deletion, read thus : '65. Composition of Agrl. income-tax : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) : (2) ... (3) No registered firm or unregistered firm treated under s. 17(5) (b) as a registered firm shall be entitled to apply for permission to compound under this s...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranglal Damani and ors. Vs. Dhanabakiam Ammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ285
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P. No. 530 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.11.1996 in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1995 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, dis-missing the appeal preferred against R.C.O.P. No. 2271 of 1993 on the file of the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.2. C.R.P. No. 531 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.11.1996 in M.P. No. 600 of 1996 in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1995 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. The said M.P. No. 600 of 1996 was filed for condoning the delay of 135 days in filing the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed for non-production of the certified copy of the order.3. C.R.P. No. 583 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.10.1996 in a Memo SR. No. 24726 of 1996 in R.C.A. No. 402 of 1994; C.R.P. No. 485 of 1994 is against the order in M.P.S.R.. No. 24729 of 1996 in R.C.A. No. 402 of of 1994; while C.R.P. No. 585 of 1997 is against the order d...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy Vs. S. Simon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ51
S.M. Abdul Wajab, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.1983 in AS. No. 209 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, partly allowing the appeal against the order dated 6.10.1982 in I.A. No. 2330 of 1978 in OS. No. 330 of 1973 on the file of District Munsif, Sholinghur.2. I.A. No. 2330 of 1978 in O.S. No. 330 of 1973 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the second appeal under Order 20, Rule 18 and Section 151, C.P.C., for determination of income from the suit properties and for payment of the petitioner's 1/5th share in the same.3. In O.S. No. 330 of 1973 a preliminary decree in respect of the items 1 to 4 and extent of Order 13 cents in item No. 5, an extent of 32 cents in item No. 6 and items 8 and 11 to 14 was passed on 7.3.1977. Final decree was passed on 30.9.1977 O.E.P. No. 175 of 1977 was filed and the plaintiff took delivery of the share of the properties on 5.11.1977. Thereafter he filed the above I.A. No. 2330 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!R. M. Adaikalavan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)95
ORDERJAYASIMHA BABU, J. :The correctness of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of R. Anandakumar & Ors. vs . State of Tamil Nadu : [1992]196ITR219(Mad) , having doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. P. R. Narayanan & Ors. vs . State of Tamil Nadu : [1993]199ITR155(Mad) , these cases have been referred to the Full Bench for determining the true scope of s. 65(3) of the TN Agrl. IT Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it stood prior to its deletion by the Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1992 w.e.f. 1st April, 1992.2. Sec. 65 of the Act deals with composition of Agrl. IT Act. Sub-s. (3) thereof, prior to its deletion, read thus :'65. Composition of Agrl. income-tax : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) :(2) ...(3) No registered firm or unregistered firm treated under s. 17(5) (b) as a registered firm shall be entitled to apply for permission to compound under this section b...
Tag this Judgment!Kousalya Ammal Vs. Valliammai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC517
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above revision petition has been preferred against the order of the District Munsif, Cuddalore refusing to admit the unregistered lease executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner as a documentary evidence. The petitioner sought to rely on the document to prove his character of possession which was collateral purpose to the terms of the lease deed. According to the petitioner, he was not relying on the document for proof of any terms in the document itself.2. The District Munsif rejected the said application on the ground that the document is an unregistered one and therefore a document which is not registered under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act could not be admitted as additional document.3. I have heard Mr. Kannan and Mrs. Hema Sampath for the respective parties. According to Mr. Kannan the document of unregistered lease deed is not totally inadmissible and that it is admissible for proof of collateral purpose. Referred...
Tag this Judgment!Kausalya Ammal Vs. Valliammai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ724a
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above revision petition has been preferred against the order of the District Munsif, Cuddalore refusing to admit the unregistered lease executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner as a documentary evidence. The petitioner sought to rely on the document to prove his character of possession which was collateral purpose to the terms of the lease deed. According to the petitioner, he was not relying on the document for proof of any terms in the document itself. 2. The District Munsif rejected the said application on the ground that the document is an unregistered one and therefore a document which is not registered under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act could not be admitted as additional document. 3. I have heard Mr. Kannan and Mrs. Hema Sampath for the respective parties. According to Mr. Kannan the document of unregistered lease deed is not totally inadmissible and that it is admissible for proof of collateral purpose. Referr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rajendran Vs. the Charirman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ52
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This writ of certiorari is to quash the order of the first respondent, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has narrated the following facts. The petitioner was working as a First Grade Foreman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Peravoorani in Thanjavur District. On 22.9.1986, he applied for one day causal leave and in continuation of his casual leave, he extended one month earned leave due to his ill-health as his one leg and one hand did not function properly and he was taking treatment at that time. But, his leave was refused by the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Peravoorani, who returned his leave application. But as he was not in his house at that time, the letter sent to him was re-directed to the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Peravoorani. After he became normal, he informe...
Tag this Judgment!Deelipkumar and Co. Vs. Mulla Gulamali and Saffia Rai Dhanaliwala Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ773
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant.2. The suit was filed for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a public charitable trust. The defendant is a monthly tenant in a portion in the ground floor on payment of Rs. 226. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose. On 26.7.1982, notice was sent for payment of rent, As there was no payment on 7.9.1982, notice determining the tenancy was sent. Since there was no compliance the suit was filed.4. The defendant contended that the allegation of nonpayment of rent for 44 months was not correct. Notice dated 7.9.1982 terminating the tenancy was not valid in the law. In the additional written statement the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was not a public charitable trust. Hence it was not entitled for exemption. In substance, the defence was that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court and the remedy was bef...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raja Vs. Bhuvaneswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC526; I(1998)DMC730; (1998)IMLJ424
Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 7.5.1997 declining to annul the marriage on the ground of fraud.2. The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, preferred a petition for declaring the marriage, with the respondent, as void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inter alia contending that the consent of the petitioner was obtained by fraud, as to a material fact concerning the respondent. Petitioner averred that he was married on 6.12.1992 and within a week of marriage, i.e., somewhere in December'92/January'93 respondent complained of pain in stomach during her menstruation period. The pain repeated at this time of her second menstruation period. The respondent under went various pathological and scanning tests etc. She was examined by a specialist. Medicines were prescribed. The Doctors are said to have disclosed that the respondent suffered from discharge of proteins. Petitioner took the respondent for treatment on number of t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sivathanu Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu a Body Corporate by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ410
Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 22.7.1997, dismissing the writ petition, declining to dispense with the apprenticeship training.2. Skeletal admitted facts run as follows: Petitioner was employed in the legal department of a Nationalised Bank for a period of fifteen years. It was claimed that by virtue of his service in the legal department, he acquired experience by appearing in consumer forums or defending the Bank in various Forums, by reading and drafting of pleadings, by analysing the judgments of various courts for deciding whether appeal or revision has to be filed against the judgment rendered against the Bank. The petitioner passed his Law Degree through correspondence course as well as three year course by attending regular classes in 1986. Under Advocates Act, 1961 Bar Council of India framed Rules, for eligibility to be enrolled as an advocate on the State roll of Advocates, provided apprenticeship of one year under a designated...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »