Chennai Court January 1998 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.
Mrs. Achamma George Vs. R. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ90
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Since the matter arises under execution, with the consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition has been taken up for final disposal.2. The respondent herein filed a suit O.S. No. 11723 of 1988 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras for recovery of possession. His case is that the construction of the building was completed in the year 1984 and it was leased out to the petitioner herein on 3.2.1987. Since the petitioner requires the building for his won occupation, he has filed a suit. He cannot initiate the eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in view of the exemption granted under Section 30 of the said Act, i.e., for the building which is less than five years old. The petitioner filed a written statement stating that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the respondent has to initiate the eviction proceedings only under the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ...
Mangai Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Narayana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ183
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The first respondent in C.R.P. No. 1413 of 1997 is the landlord. He has leased out the property to the second respondent in the said C.R.P. He has filed R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli to evict the petitioner herein on the ground that the second respondent had subleased the property to the petitioner and the petitioner being a sub-lessee without the consent of the landlord, is liable to be evicted. It is the case of the petitioner that she is closely related to the second respondent and she was residing with her family with the second respondent in the petition premises. The first respondent had to shift to Bombay in January, 1989 and hence on 21.12.1988, she along with the second respondent met the first respondent and requested for the occupation of the building by the petitioner and the first respondent agreed for the same and she is residing as a tenant in the premises. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate aut...
Swamimalai Devasthanam, Swamimalai Vs. T. Marimuth and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC213; (1998)IIMLJ1
ORDER1. The petitioner/ temple is the owner of the land in which the respondents have been doing cultivation in the respective lands. Admittedly, the tenants have to pay the rent for a number of Faslis. Taking advantage of the Act 38 of 1990, the respondents filed Applications before the Revenue Court to get benefits under the provisions of the said Act. According to thetenants, they are liable to pay the instalments as contemplated under the said Act, only with respect to the rent due, which is not time-barred. According to the landlord, while calculating the instalment amounts, the Revenue Court should take into consideration, the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of the fact whether it is time-barred or not.2. But the Revenue Court in all these cases quantified the arrears of rent, excluding the amounts payable by the tenants, which cannot be recovered, as they had been time-barred. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed the above Revisions, against the orders of the ...
Thanjai Murasu (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR280(Mad)
Janakthanam, J.1. These two references relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 raise a common question of law. The assessee, Thanjai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, it is said, purchased newsprint for the purpose of printing and circulating newspapers. The original assessments for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 had been completed.2. Thereafter, it appears the Income-tax Officer received information that in a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Income-tax Act'), in the premises of its sister concern, Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, a stock book (RG 16 register) was found, according to which the. wastage of newsprint came to be less than 5 per cent., as against 11.1 per cent. shown for 1973-74 and 10.4 per cent. shown for 1974-75. Hence, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after complying with the requisiteformalities for the reason that the wastage shown by the as...
Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR269(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. These two references relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 raise a common question of law.2. The assessee, Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd., Madras, it is said, had been purchasing newsprints for the purpose of printing and circulating newspapers to the public. The assessments for the relevant assessment years1973-74 and 1974-75 had been completed originally. Subsequently, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1975-76, it was found that the wastage claimed by the assessee was excessive. In the course of survey operations under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), a stock book (RG 16 register) maintained was taken. This register, it is said, was maintained to comply with the Central Excise Regulations. It showed that the real wastage recorded was far less than 5 per cent.3. Information was also received from the Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, (the ITO), which revealed that in the case of another newspaper, Dina Mal...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Mother's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1669Mad
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in ESI OP No. 1 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court at Pondicherry.2. The respondent-petitioner herein filed an application under Section 75(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act to set aside the order dated November 18, 1983, passed by the appellant-Corporation on the following grounds: The respondent-petitioner herein received on December 8, 1983, an order dated November 18, 1983, issued by the respondent imposing on the petitioner damages totalling Rs. 2,223 for an alleged delay in payment of contributions due under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for the contribution periods July 1980, September 1980, November 1980, January 1981 and March 1981. The petitioner has paid all the contributions due to the respondent for these contribution periods and the delay is due to the persistent refusal of the respondent to determine the amount on the basis of the petitioner's re...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. A. Janardhanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ791; (1998)IMLJ770
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras branch in OAII/22 of 1993, dated 3.6.1995, Southern Railway represented by its General Manager, Chennai-3, has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, before this Court.2. The respondents herein, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Railway Claims Tribunal have made a claim for Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation alleging that their son J. Sunil died in the railway accident which occurred on 1.6.1993 at 11.50 p.m. in train No. 6635 Kurla Express at Samalpatti in Dharmapuri District. Apart from the abovesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- the applicants have also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,200/- for the loss of one briefcase and further cash of Rs. 700/-. The said application was resisted by the Railway contending that as per the death list of passengers prepared during the accident and submitted by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Palghat, Southern Railway, the name of J. Sun...
B. Anraj Pipada Vs. V. Umayal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ524
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. When the stay petition was listed, the main C.R.P., itself had been taken up for final disposal, since the short question involved is whether the petitioner has committed any wilful default in paying the rent. The respondent herein is the landlord of the petition premises. He filed R.C.O.P.No. 2418 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras to evict the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, since he has failed to pay the rent from December, 1987 to June, 1988. The petitioner filed a counter stating that he had not committed any wilful default and that since the respondent failed to pay the property tax, the Corporation Officials insisted that the petitioner should pay the tax. Without paying the tax, he had deposited the rent in the bank. The Rent Controller by his order dated 24.6.1993 allowed the petition for eviction finding that the respondent has not produced any document to establish his defence of depositing the rents in the bank. Fu...
J. Sivasubramanian and Another Vs. N. Govindarajan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC470; (1998)IMLJ643
ORDER1. A person who is not a party to the suit, but who is aggrieved by the decree, has come to this Court, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging fraud and collusion in obtaining the decree.2. Second respondent was the owner of the suit property. He executed a power of attorney in favour of first respondent, who filed O.S.No. 7631 of 1997, on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on 3.11.1997. On 5.11.1997, the principal (second respondent), who had executed the power of attorney, made an endorsement on the plaint that he has no objection for passing of a decree. The suit was decreed as prayed for. The decree reads thus:'(1) That it be and is hereby declared that the General power duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 29.9.97 duly registered at the Office of Sub-Registrar, Purasawakam, as Document No.575/97 is, valid acted upon, irrevocable, etc.(2) That the defendant be and is hereby restrained by permanent injunction from...
D. Balamurugan and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ663
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Except in W.P. No. 18931 of 1997, in all the other writ petitions, petitioners were students of Fathima Teacher Training Institute for Men, Ramanathapuram Educational District during 1988-90. They completed their Teacher Training Course and they wrote their Examination in 1992. Since the petitioners did not get pass mark in all subjects, they appeared for examination held in 1992 and 1993, Petitioner in W.P. No. 18812 of 1997 sat for the examination in July, 1993. The grievance of the petitioners is that their results have not been published and certificates have not been issued.2. In W.P. No. 18931 of 1997, petitioners who are six in number were students of Little Flower Teacher Training Institute, Pudukkotai, during 1989-91. Their Registration Numbers have been given in the affidavit. They wrote their Examination in May, 1992, and, for the failed subjects, they wrote the Examination in July, 1993. Their grievance is that their results have not been published...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »