Chennai Court November 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.
Mohamed Gani Vs. Habibullah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ609
K. P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai in A.S.No. 60 of 1985 in reversing that of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam in O.S.No. 936 of 1983. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to remove the obstruction to the windows on the plaintiff's property, on the north side or for the court itself to direct the court staff to carry out the said direction, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's putting up upper floor in his property and putting up windows on the north side of his property and for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the newly put up common wall on the north side of the plaintiff's property and to restore the common pathway in between the plaintiff's property and defendants' property.3. According to the plaintiff the propert...
G. Muthulakshmi Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ147
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard all the parties.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent dated 20.4.1992 and bearing No. Na.Ka.Adi.8-126294/87 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue a community certificate stating the petition belongs' to the Malaikuravan community.3. In brief, the petitioner who was appointed as a temporary C & W Khalasi in the year 1987 was asked to produce community certificate for the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribes as she claims that she belongs to Malaikuravan community which is notified as one of the scheduled tribes community. In pursuant to her appointment, the third respondent conducted an enquiry to verify the community of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was asked to appear before the third respondent on 7.11.1981 and on which date she produced the following evidence to show that she belongs to Malaikur...
Mrs. N. Santhiyavalli and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)268
ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDValidity--Ignorance of relevant aspectsCatch Note:Appropriate Authority acquired property under section 269UD--Authority failed to take note of non-availability of title deed with vendors and possibility of minors filing a suit questioning validity of release deed in favour of vendor--Since authority failed to apply its mind to all relevant aspects like law declared by Supreme Court with regard to valuation, adjustment to be made in price by reason of size in plot, etc., therefore, order of the authority could not be sustained and matter was remanded to the Authority for passing a fresh order.Held:This approach of the Authority cannot be said to be in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court when it is found that the title deed is not available, it is a factor of significance to the prospective purchasers as also to all other persons from whom that purchaser may seek to raise credit on the security of the property. No declaratory decree had been o...
P. Ramswamy and Co. Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN292(Mad)
ORDER1. The validity of the provisions of sections 44AC and 206C of the Incometax Act, 1961 having been upheld by the Supreme Court, these writ petitions which challenge those provisions as unconstitutional are required to be and are dismissed. Tlyjelecision of the Supreme Court is reported in the case of Union ol India v. A. Sanyasi Rao : [1996]219ITR330(SC) Taxman 32 1. No costs. W.M.P. No. 6442 of 1991 is also dismissed....
C.S. Roopasingh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR615(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner who had approached the Settlement Commission in the year, 1994, and who is a party to the order made on May 2, 1995, by that Commission complains that the recovery has been effected by the Assessing Officer without any authority of law and contrary to the terms of the Settlement Commission's order. It is his case that the fixed deposit receipts seized after search in his premises on December 20, 1990, had been retained contrary to the mandate of Section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that the fixed deposit receipts have since been encashed by the Assessing Officer for the adjustment of the amounts against the arrears of tax, etc.2. The order of the Settlement Commission in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted and set out below :'4(b) For the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, interest under Section 139(8) would be charged for a period of six months. Interest under Section 215/217 would be ...
V. Rajendran Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR812(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner's grievance is with regard to the proclamation of sale issued in respect of properties which he asserts belong to him, having been acquired from his grandfather and his mother. The sale was for the purposes of recovery of the arrears of tax due from his father. The Revenue had attached those properties on October 27, 1974, and had also issued a notice under Rule 2 of Schedule II. The proclamation of sale, however, was issued only in the month of March, 1996. The petitioner was not heard before that proclamation was issued and no notice had been given to him.2. This court after issuing notice to the respondents in this petition did not prevent the Tax Recovery Officer from proceeding with the sale. The only order that was made was that the confirmation of sale would be stayed till the disposal of the main petition. It is now submitted by counsel for the Revenue that the sale has not been held. It is, therefore, clear that any fresh sale can no lon...
Management of Kali Material Handling Systems Vs. Regional Provident Fu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1418Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Since in all these matters, the issue involved and the parties to the writ are common, all these writ petitions, Writ Petitions Nos. 14143 to 14148 of 1990, were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the respective parties.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, all these writ petitions have been filed, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the order of the respondent dated July 6, 1990, and to quash the same. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts, and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow their writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent a common counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other, and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss all these writ peti...
Marimuthu Vs. Savarimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ480
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant in O.S.No. 90 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Keeranur is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Respondents 1 and 2 in this revision have filed the suit for the following reliefs.3. Petitioners a member of Kuravan Community, which is a recognised scheduled caste in the State of Tamil Nadu. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, are also residents of the same village and belong to Udayar caste, a backward community. There is a dispute between petitioner's community and the community of the plaintiffs' and others in respect of a property, which is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in which they claim passage for taking clay horse. Since revision petitioner did not yield to their demand, it caused disturbance.4. On 8.7.1997, respondents 1 and 2 abused petitioner by calling him with caste name and also caused injuries. A complaint has been ...
N. Ramesh Vs. Sundaramurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ471
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First respondent in Election O.P.No. 229 of 1996, on the file of Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Chengalpattu, is the revision petitioner.2. First respondent herein filed the above election petition to declare that the election of the petitioner herein as President of Putheri Village Panchayat is void, and to direct the respondents 1, 5 and 6 in the election petition to pay costs of the proceedings; and also to grant other suitable reliefs.3. In the election petition, it is averred that the election petitioner had contested for the post of President of Putheri Village Panchayat, Kancheepuram Taluk. He was allotted 'Roller' symbol for the election held on 9.10.1996. Even though he had more prospectus for being elected as President of the Panchyat, they were spoiled by respondents 1, 5 and 6 in the election petition due to various acts, viz., (a) Even though there were only five contesting candidates in the election for the post of Panchayat Presid...
Lakshmi Balaraman Vs. Punjab National Bank, Mount Road Branch, 163, An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas33(Mad); 1998(2)CTC754; (1999)IMLJ481
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by third respondent in Transferred Application No.100 of 1996, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madras. Respondent herein filed C.S. No. 852 of 1989, on the Original Side of this Court. When the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, the suit was transferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and was numbered as Transferred Application No.100 of 1996.2. Respondent filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of more than Rs. 21 lakhs and interest at quarterly rests, and for consequential reliefs. From the body of the plaint, it could be seen that the first defendant company availed financial assistance in the nature of Term Loan and Cash Credit Facilities, as per application dated 19.11.1985. The same was sanctioned by respondent as per sanction letter dated 30.12.1985. As security for the loan, machineries were hypothecated, Computers, floppies, ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »