Chennai Court October 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.
The Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ487
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suits are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1984 respectively made in O.S.Nos. 7929 of 1981, 8350 of 1981 and 8351 of 1981 by the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby decreeing all the three suits, as prayed for.2. In fact, all the above three suits have been filed against one and the same defendant, praying thereby to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff in O.S.No. 7929 of 1981 (connected with A.S.No. 376 of 1985) a sum of Rs. 91,476.76; to pay the plaintiff in O.S.No. 8350 of 1981 (connected with A.S.No. 378 of 1985) a sum of Rs. 41,866 and to pay the plaintiff in O.S.No. 8351 of 1981 (connected with A.S.No. 379 of 1985) a sum of Rs. 55,368, with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sums and with costs, which amounts, the plaintiffs are said to have paid in excess to the defendant, than what the plaintiffs should have paid, as per the accounts.3. So far as the suit in O.S.No. 7929 of 1981, which is...
Periasamy Vs. Joseph Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ769
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The aggrieved defendant has filed the appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 36 of 1980 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Tuticorin, dated 22.7.1981 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 228 of 1977, dated 31.10.1979.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed suit, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant. The properties are a house bearing door No. 5-A at Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin with a vacant site with 2 small huts. The plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 19 years and he has been directly paying the house tax and land tax. The properties were measured and survey stones have also been planted on the boundaries by the authorities. He has prescribed his title to the properties by adverse possession. The defendant is interfering with his possession and enjoyment. The defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff in the Panchayat Board, Tuticorin...
A. Syed Anwer Ahmed Hussainy and Other Vs. the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC445; (1999)IMLJ658
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the above revisions against the order passed in E.A.Nos. 83 of 1993 and 378 of 1992 in O.S.No. 10 of 1909, on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, dated 25.11.1998.2. One Hazarath Syed Sha Rahmathulla Sahib was given certain properties in Killai Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Samayapuram Village, Tiruchi District, and in Navabpettai, Chidambaram Taluk by the then King. After his death, he was intered in Killai village and his son Syed Sha Edullahwas also intered after his death in Navabpettai Durgah. He had two sons, namely, Syed Sha Ghulam Mohideen and Syed Sha Phool. Syed Sha Phool had a quarrel with his father with respect to the properties and he separated himself from the family by getting 20 kani lands. The balance extent of the properties had come under the control of Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen. With a view to continue the object for which the properties were given by the original owner, the said Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen executed two documents in t...
Gonvindu Naicker Estate Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR368(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a charitable trust, which is aggrieved by the order of the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Madras, holding that the amounts described by the assessee as deficits are relatable to the two years preceding the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1991-92 not having been carried forward, the income of the assessment year 1991-92 cannot be adjusted against those deficits of earlier years. The Director was of the view that in the absence of any specific enabling provisions in the Act, there could be no carry over of deficits of earlier years for being adjusted in those arrears. 2. The deficits so claimed by the assessee were by reason of the payment of interest, and part of the principal to the Indian Bank from which it had obtained a substantial loan for putting up a new building in place of the old building that was owned by it, the new building so put up being a multi-storeyed commercial complex, from which it derived rental income. 3...
Sultan Birthowus Vs. State Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ816
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the detenu, has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking to quash the order of detention dated 5-11-1997 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Eixchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. The detailed facts are not necessary to dispose of the petition, in view of the fact that this petition has to be allowed on a short ground.3. The relevant particulars which are required for the purpose of disposal of this petition arc as follows : The petitioner was arrested by the customs authorities on 9-9-1997 when he was in possession of foreign currency and a voluntary confession statement was obtained from him on the same day. On 10-9-1997 he was produced before the learned Magistrate, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody. On the same day, the petitioner filed a bail application stating that he was innocent and the confession statement obtained from him by the customs authorities was not a voluntar...
N. Murugesan Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ260
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus, forebearing the respondent, the District Collector, Karur from transporting the sand stored at Manavasi Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, by the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, he is the dealer in dealing with the sand. He used to purchase sand from the lessees by paying necessary charges and transport them to the places with valid transport permits. According to the petitioner, he purchased sand from the lessee with respect to the quarry in S.F. No. 1 of Mayanur village, Kulithalai Taluk on payment of consideration. The petitioner stored 357 lorry loads of sand from the said Mayanur Village and, in view of the lorry strike he could not remove the sand from the said Mayanur Village. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the law and order situation at Coimbatore, there was no order for supply of sand. During the second week of March, 1998, though ...
A. Syed Anwar Ahmed Hussainy and anr. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ658
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners have filed the above revisions against the order passed in E.A.Nos.83 of 1993 and 378 of 1992 in O.S.No. 10 of 1909, on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, dated 25.11.1998.2. One Hazarath Syed Sha Rahmathulla Sahib was given certain properties in Killai Village, Chidambaram Taluk Samayapuram Village, Tiruchi District and in Navabpettai, Chidambaram taluk by the then King. After this death, he was interred in Killai village and his son Syed Sha Eduallh was also interred after his death in Navabpettai Dargah. He had two sons, namely, Syed Sha Ghulam Mohideen and Syed Sha Phool. Syed Sha Phool had a quarrel with his father with respect to the properties and he separated himself from the family by getting 20 kani lands. The balance extent of the properties had come under the control of Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen. With a view to continue the object for which the properties were given by the original owner, the said Syed Sha Ghulam Mohideen execut...
P. Sankara Pandi thevar Vs. C. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ438
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner who is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No. 266 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudhram has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No. 755 of 1997, dated 10.11.1997.2. The case in brief is as follows The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No. 266 of 1995 against respondents 2 and 3 and also the petitioner for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The trial of the case commenced and the petitioner/3rd defendant was examined as D. W. 1 and Ex.B-1 an unregistered lease deed was marked in the case. The 1st respondent/plaintiff objected to the marking of the document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and not registered. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No. 755 of 1997 for rejection of the document Ex.B-1 already marked on the aforesaid ground. The 3rd defendant opposed the application, stating that only after hearing the objections of the parties, the documents was marked. Ex.B-1 is ...
Kumaresan Vs. Girirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC371
ORDER1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.l, Kancheepuram on 23.11.1990 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The complaint is one filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The date of the offence is 15.7.1989 and date of complaint is 9.12.1989. The order does not show whether any process was issued to the accused and whether the accused had entered appearance or not. It does not also read that it was the appointed day for a appearance of the accused on the date fixed for trial. The order also does not show that on the date of hearing i.e., 23.11.90 the accused was present. It is not stated in the order that the case was posted finally on that day. It is not also stated that the complainant has been absent on the previous hearing. Within six months of the filing of the complaint, the case has been disposed of by the Magistrate, by misusing the provisions of Section 256 of...
Southern Refractories and Minerals Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR773(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. The petitioners are the proposed purchaser, the tenant in possession and the owner of the property being the site and building at No. 57, Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Madras-5, of an extent of six grounds and 1,431 sq. ft. which is sought to be compulsorily purchased by the appropriate authority. That authority by its order dated February 3, 1993, has held that the value of the property as set out in the agreement dated May 17, 1991, between the proposed vendor and the proposed purchaser is understated by 30 per cent. The amount of consideration set out in the agreement being Rs. 60 lakhs while in the valuation of the authority, the market value of that property is held to be Rs. 80.67 lakhs based upon the guideline value in the area. The tenant of the premises whose possession is set out in Form No. 37-I and whose possession has also been verified by the authority by personal inspection and to whom notic has been issued calling upon him to surrender vacant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »