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.
Ch. Kamala, Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)241; [1999]240ITR63(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These writ petitions are by the owners and the prospective purchasers as also by one of the tenants of the first floor of the property bearing Door No. 25, Wallace Garden III Street, Madras 34, comprised in S. No. 62/28, Block No. 13, measuring as extent of three grounds with a building thereon consisting of ground and first floors, each of the floors having about 2,200 sq. ft. of built up area. Their grievance is against the order made by the appropriate authority on October 29, 1994, directing compulsory purchase of the property at a discounted sale consideration which is less than the agreed price of Rs. 25 lakhs for each floor with undivided half-share in the land, to the two purchasers. The tenant of the first floor is a private limited company of which the purchasers of the first floor are directors. The tenant has been in occupation of that portion for over 30 years. The rent being paid by the tenant at the time the order was made by the authority was at ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Madras Cricket Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ200Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the order dated April 12, 1989, passed by the E.S.I. Court (First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) in E.S.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1986.2. The respondent viz., Madras Cricket Club has been established to provide for its members pastimes and games like cricket, hockey, lawn-tennis, etc. It was not established with any profit motive. Whatever amount collected by way of subscriptions or otherwise was applied solely towards the promotion of objects of the club and no portion of it was paid or transferred by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise to the members of the club. In order to provide refreshment to the members of the club during sports and games, the club was having the canteen inside the premises. The canteen is not open to the public, but restricted to the members of the club. The canteen or the work done by the employees of any canteen was only incidental to the primary ob...
Saraswathi and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ535
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. This is a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned notice in No.I.R.224/KMR/91, dated 22.11.1990 and the order of assessment made by the first respondent in ULC 232/1391/KMR, dated 23.7.1990 and quash the name.2. Petitioners are the joint owners of the punja land measuring an extent of 1.15 acres in Survey No. 48/2 of Kuniamuthur Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District. They filed a suit in O.S.No. 195 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore for declaration of title to the property and for recovery of possession of the same from one Palaniammal and five others. Ultimately, the petitioners succeeded in the litigation which took nearly ten years. It is submitted by the petitioners that at the time of filing of this writ petition, though title to the property has been conferred on the petitioners, they are yet to take possession of the property from the defendants in the suit and do cultivatio...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ177
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983 made in O.S. No. 9313 of 1981 by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation directing the defendant Bank to pay Rs. 40,000 with interest thereon at 20 per cent per annum from 7.8.1981 till the date of decree and at 6 per cent per annum from that date onwards till the date of realisation and with proportionate costs.2. The suit filed by the respondent herein in the court below is for a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 68,000 together with interest on Rs. 40,000 at 20 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization and with costs.3. So far as the averments of the plaint are concerned,' the plaintiff-Corporation entered into a contract dated 29.8.1977 with Messrs.Indecor, Broadway, Madras, for supply of timber of certain specifications with condition that the sa...
Shanmuga Sundara Konar and anr. Vs. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ289
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The respondent landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli to evict the tenants petitioners. Pending the R.C.O.P., the respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 122 of 1994 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, on the ground that the petitioners had not paid the rent in respect of the premises in question. The Rent Controller directed the tenants/petitioners to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of the petition, till August, 1994 and to pay the said amount on or before 22.3.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal in R.C.A. No. 30 of 1995 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli. Before the appellate authority, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was questioned saying that after conversion of the Tirunelveli Municipality into the Corporation the Act has not been extended by a not...
K.P. Venkatachalam Vs. Arulmigu Soleeswaraswami and Prasanna Venkatesw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ19
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant has filed the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 82 of 1985, dated 5.2.1986 on the file of District Court, Erode, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 2150 of 1981, dated 23.4.1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif s Court, Erode.2. The case in brief is as follows:The suit properties had been treated as temple poromboke and enjoyed by the plaintiff for centuries. The trustees of the temple leased out the vacant site item 1 to the defendant originally on a monthly rent of Rs.10 and later raised to Rs. 20. The defendant put up a superstructure in a portion of the same and he is in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff also filed R.C.O.P.No. 16 of 1973 to evict the defendant from the holding and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the defendant filed O.S.No. 517 of 1976 on the file of District Munsif s Court, Erode and the suit was decreed with a direction that the plaintiff herein has to move...
Ponnaya Alias Ramayammal Vs. Nachiappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ8
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The defendant borrowed Rs. 2,800 from the plaintiff on 12.10.1972 and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per cent per annum, but, he did not repay that amount. The interest is claimed at 9% per annum since the defendant is an agriculturist.3. The case of the defendant is as follows:The suit pronote is not supported by consideration. The defendant got some money from the plaintiff after leaving a blank pronotes and the defendant repaid that amount. After some years, misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and the blank pronote was utilised to create a pronote and the defendant is entitled to the benefit under various Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts, particularly Act 31 of 1976 since he is a small farmer.4. The trial court found that the suit pronote is validly supported by consideration, but, dismissed the suit as the defendant is a small ...
Ch. Kamala Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN198(Mad)
ORDERThese writ petitions are by the owners and the prospective purchasers as also by one of the tenants of the first floor of the property bearing Door No. 25, Wallace Garden, III Street, Madras-34, comprised in S. No. 62/28, Block No. 13, measuring an extent of 3 grounds with a building thereon consisting of ground and first floors, each of the floors having about 2200 sq. ft. of built-up area. Their grievance is against the order made by the Appropriate Authority on 29-10-1994 directing compulsory purchase of the property at a discounted sale consideration which is less than the agreed price of Rs. 25 lakhs for each floor with undivided half-share in the land to the two purchasers. The tenant of the first floor is a private limited company of which the purchasers of the first floor are directors. The tenant has been in occupation of that portion for over 30 years. The rent being paid by the tenant at the time the order was made by the Authority was at Rs. 4,000 p.m.2. The order of t...
Muthukrishnammal Vs. Anandhalakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC748; (1999)IMLJ206
ORDER1.Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Dindugal is the Revision Petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Respondent herein filed an eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner/tenant defaulted in payment of rent. In the counter statement, this allegation is denied. But when the matter came up for trial, parties settled the matter and on compromise, orders have been passed. Tenant was given 21 months time to vacate the premises and in case he fails to surrender vacant possession, landlord is allowed to take possession through Court. When the tenant did not surrender vacant possession by the end of the term, landlord filed an execution petition in E.P.197 of 1998 for getting possession of the building. An objection was filed in the lower court and the tenant wanted further six months time to surrender possession. Lower Court did not allow it and ordered delivery of the property. The same is...
Sancheti Leasing Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR814(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioners are purchasers of two different items of properties from a common vendor. They are aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer who has declared their purchases as void by his order dated April 7, 1994, which concludes as under :'Considering all the above facts, Section 281(1) of the Act, is clearly attracted in respect of the sales effected by the assessee on March G, 1985, and July 15, 1987. I, therefore, treat the following sales of immovable properties effected by the assessee as 'null and void' under Section 281(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (i) Property (residential house) at old No. 27 (new No. 68), Bunder Street, Madras, sold on March 6, 1985, to Sanchetty Leasing Co. Ltd., as per document No. 222 of 1985 of the Registrar, North Madras. (ii) Property at No. 8 (old No. 85), Varadha Muthiappan Street, Madras, sold on July 16, 1987, to Sri C. Balan as per document No. 827 of 1987 of the Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, Madras.' 2. The petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »