Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
Periya Munisamy and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ757
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the land acquisition proceedings in G.O. Ms. No. 1696 of Social Welfare Department, dated. 14.9.1987 and quash the proceedings of the first respondent insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned in respect to Survey No. 141 of an extent of 1.60 acres in Hosur Village and Taluk, Dharmapuri District.2. The matter relates to land acquisition proceedings. The details necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under:The petitioner are owners of lands in S. No. 141 of an extent of 1.60 acres in Hosur Village, Dharmapuri District. They purchased the lands in question in the year 1976 from one Papamma under Registered Sale deed. A notification under Section 4(1) in G.O. Ms. No. 2072, Social Welfare Department was issued on 7.8.1986 and published in the Government Gazette on 3.9.1986. Section 6 declaration was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1696, Social Welfare Department, ...
Tag this Judgment!Asarab Ali and Six Others Vs. V. Uthirapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC154; (1998)IIMLJ616
ORDER1. Legal heirs of the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1982, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam, are the revision petitioners.2. Eviction order was obtained through Rent Control Court and E.P.No.142 of 1986 was filed for taking possession.3. Pending execution, the decree - holder died on 27.2.1993. But the impleading petition was filed only on 25.4.1994. A contention was raised on behalf of the tenant that the petitioners herein cannot be impleaded, and they ought to have come on record within two months from the date of death of the decree-holder. For the said purpose, Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules was invoked by the tenant. Rent Controller accepted the contention and rejected the claim of the decree holders. Theimpleading petition filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed by the Executing Court, and the same is challenged in his revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.4. The order of the court below is p...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Fabrics Rep. by Its Managing Partner P. K. Govindarajan Vs. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC749
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to take steps as provided under Section 31 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, by referring the matter to the District Judge, Kancheepuram with regard to the petitioner's debts to the respondent No.2.2. The petitioner claims that it had invested Rs.12,00,000 in the weaving factory. Besides he has raised loan from the second respondent herein. Petitioner had himself also raised working capital loans and further admitted that the petitioner had already filed a suit in O.S.No.7936 of 1995 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras against the very same second respondent. The petitioner also admits that already writ petitions have been filed in W.P.Nos.1713 of 1994 and W.P.No.12465 of 1993 and they are pending.3. The petitioner alleges that there has been a theft and he had shifted his factory. The petitioner further states that the second respondent issued a notice during January and February, 199...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramasamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR169(Mad)
K. Sampath, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiora-rified mandamus to call for the records relating to the petitioner in C. No. 1325B(8) of 1986-87 on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned order dated July 27, 1988, and consequently direct the first respondent to waive the interest of Rs. 49,778 levied under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72.2. It is alleged in the affidavit in support of the petition as follows :During the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner, was a partner in a firm, P. Ramasamy, consisting of three partners. The Income-tax Officer, City Circle IV(8), Madras-6, the second respondent herein, rejected the registration under Section 185(l)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for the firm P. Ramasamy, and took the view that the petitioner was the owner of the so called firm of P. Ramaswamy in individual capacity and determined the total income at Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. N. Meenakshi and anr. Vs. the Secretary Legislative Assembly Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ506
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Both petitioners in the above writ petitions have identical grievance, hence the same may be disposed of by the following common order. First I shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 17084 of 1993 as found in the affidavit filed by her. According to the petitioner, she is a holder of M.A. degree and B.G.L. decree, she was recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1976 as Junior Assistant, and she was fully qualified to be appointed as Junior Assistant now designated as Assistant She was allotted to the Legislative Coun-cil Secretariat by, the Service Commission. She was governed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Secretariat Service Rules at the time of her appointment. She was promoted to the time of her appointment. She was promoted to the post of Assistant now designated as Assistant Section Officer on 22.4.1977 in the Legislative Council, Secretariat. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Council was abolished with effect from 31...
Tag this Judgment!M.K.M. Abdul Hadi Vs. M. Manimaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ565
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 59 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam/respondent in E.P. No. 59 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul is the petitioner in this revision. The first respondent herein who is the assignee has filed E.P. No. 59 of 1990 in O.S. No. 59 of 1983 before the Sub Court, Dindigul under Order 21, Rule 16 and Section 52 of C.P.C. to recognise him as decree holder in O.S. No. 59 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam and to attach a sum of Rs. 29,570.50 out of amount available in O.S. No. 33 of 1985 of 1985 of Sub Court, Dindigul and also permit him to withdraw the attached amount.2. The first respondent herein filed an application in E.P. No. 59 of 1990 Sub Court, Dindigul under Order 21, Rule 16 to approve the assignment made in favour of him by the decree-holder for the said application the petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner therein is a transferee of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)111
ORDERK. SAMPATH, J:The Writ Petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the petitioner in 'C' No. 1325B(8)/86-87 on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned order dt. 27th July, 1988 and consequently direct the first respondent to waive the interest of Rs. 49,778 levied under s. 220(2) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1971-72.2. It is alleged in the affidavit in support of the petition as follows:During the asst. yr. 1971-72, the petitioner, was a partner in a Firm Mls. P. Ramaswamy, consisting of three partners. The ITO, City Circle W(8) Madras-6 the second respondent herein rejected the registration under s. 185(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the firm Mls. P. Ramaswamy and took the view that the petitioner was the owner of the so called firm of Mls. P. Ramaswamy in individual capacity and determined the total income at Rs. 6,19,710. The petitioner filed an appeal to the AAC Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Palaniappa Transports Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR492(Mad)
J. Kanakaraj, J. 1. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1973-74 corresponding to the previous year ended on 30th May, 1972. The assessee is a registered firm and claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. There were conflicting decisions of the various High Courts and the Tribunal chose to follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court in K.T. Wire Products vs . Union of India : [1973]92ITR459(All) and that of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs . Garden Silk Weaving Factory : [1975]101ITR658(Guj) and held that the assessee was not entitled to claim such set off in respect of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. The decision of the Tribunal was rendered on 30th November, 1976. Subsequent to the said decision, the Madras High Court rendered a judgment in CIT vs . Nagapatinam Import & Export Corporation : [1979]119ITR444(Mad) following certain decisions of the Bombay High Court. The view of the Madras High Court was that the assessee could claim such a set of...
Tag this Judgment!N. Dhanalakshmi and Two ors. Vs. S. Ekanathan, Proprietor, Eknath Real ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC550; (1998)IMLJ132
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The defendants in C.S. No. 94 of 1994 have filed these two appeals aggrieved by the common order dated 25.2.1997 made by the learned single Judge in Application Nos. 520 and 522 of 1997.2. Application No. 520 of 1997 was filed by the defendants to revoke the leave already granted on 6.10.1993 in Application No. 5529 of 1993 to the plaintiff to institute the suit. Application No. 522 of 1997 was filed by the defendants for deciding issue No. 1 relating to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before taking up the trial of other issues. The learned single judge by the common order dated 25.2.1997 dismissed both the applications.3. The parties in these appeals, during the course of the judgment, shall be referred to as they are described in the plaint. Facts which are considered necessary and relevant for disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit C.S. No. 94 of 1994 on 6.10.1993 praying for a decree, directing the d...
Tag this Judgment!N. Dhanalakshmi and ors. Vs. S. Eknathan, Proprietor, Eknath Real Esta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ132
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The defendants in C.S. No. 94 of 1994 have filed these two appeals aggrieved by the common order dated 25.2.1997 made by the learned single Judge in Application Nos. 520 and 522 of 1997.2. Application No. 520 of 1997 was filed by the de-fendants to revoke the leave already granted on 6.10.1993 in Application No. 5529 of 1993 to the plaintiff to institute the suit. Application No. 522 of 1997 was filed by the defendants for deciding issue No. 1 relating to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before taking up the trial of other issues. The learned single Judge by the common order dated 25.2.1997 dismissed both the applications.3. The parties in these appeals, during the course of the Judgment, shall be referred to as they are described in the plaint. Facts which are considered necessary and relevant for disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit C.S. No. 94 of 1994 on 6.10.1993 praying for a decree, directing the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »