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.
M. Venkammal Vs. Rathina Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ606
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and for damages of Rs. 2,100. The plaintiff got the property from Renga Reddy by a settlement deed dated 2.5.1970 which was settled on her in consideration of the love and affection which the settloer had and also her services rendered to him. Renga Reddy purchased the above property from Ammakannu Ammal and her sons by registered document dated 2.8.1962. Till the death of Renga Reddy he was in possession of the properties covered by the settlement deed. The suit property is a portion of Survey No. 2/2 and the total extent is about 2.08 acres. Out of this, the plaintiff leased out 83 cents to one Ponnuswamy Reddy under 'guthagai muchilika' executed by him. The said property was cultivated by the plaintiff for one year after the settlement. Next year, when she was away at a different village, the first defendant trespassed into the property and cultivated the sa...
The Tamil Nadu Electricity, Thanjavur Electricity System Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ151
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the owner of Sangam Theatre at Thiruvarur. The electricity service connection No. 220 was given to the theatre and the permitted work load was only 12.8 kilo watt. She has been paying the electricity charges regularly. On 10.12.1983, some of the officials of the Electricity Department came to the theatre for inspection and obtained some statement from some persons in the theatre as if the electricity was used to the extent of 22.9 kilo watt and the work load was more than the permitted load. The inspection as well as the subsequent accounting is not proper and correct. The plaintiff sent a communication to inspect the theatre again. But it was not carried out. Further a communication was sent to the plaintiff calling upon her to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,985 representing half of the provisional assessment within a period of 15 days failing which the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mill Stores (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)311
ORDERMatter not subject-matter of appealCatch Note:Assessment order had been made on 9-2-1984 and the order in appeal passed on 23-3-1985--That part of the assessment order which was not the subject-matter of appeal was revised by the Commissioner by order dated 17-3-1986--His order was set aside by Tribunal on the ground that the revisional power was not available to the Commissioner, as in the view of the Tribunal the order of assessment had merged with the order in appeal--Assessee sought to support the order of Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 184 ITR 599 (Bom), wherein the court held that even after the amendment by the Finance Act, 1989, section 263 could not be invoked in respect of the assessment orders against which appellate orders had been made prior to 1-6-1988--Not tenable--The express language of the Explanation below section 263(1) leaves no manner of doubt that all orders passed in ap...
D.S. Reddy Rep. by His Power Agent, D.P.S. Reddy Vs. Dr. G.V. Reddy, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC172
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.5849 of 1997 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras seeking a decree (i) for declaration that he is the sole licensee of the Locker bearing No.687 in class 'H' of the vault of the first defendant; (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner operating the said Locker and (iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to break open the said Locker in the presence of the Power Agent of the plaintiff and hand over all documents and valuables available in the Locker to the plaintiff's power agent. The said suit was defended by the petitioner/second defendant.2. Pending suit, at the instance of the first respondent, an order of injunction was passed against the second defendant/petitioner from operating the said Locker, which is still in force.3. Thereafter the first respondent/plaintiff came forward with the present application in I.A.No.8973 of 1998 to open ...
Munikrishna Achari Vs. Kanniappa @ Raja Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC645
ORDER1. The petitioner had obtained a decree in O.S.No 781 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham for recovery of amount from the respondent. The said decree was passed on 28.11.1981. The petitioner filed E.P.No.296 of 1993 to execute the said decree. On 24.6.1993, since the respondents in the execution petition were not present inspite of notice, they are set ex parte. Thereafter, on 4.11.1993, petitioner was directed to file sale papers of the execution petition and the executing court the matter to 2.12.1993. When the case was called on 2.12.1993, since the sale papers were not filed, executing Court has rejected the execution petition. To restore the said execution petition, as it happens to be the last execution petition toexecute the decree, the petitioner has filed application under Section 151. Civil Procedure Code. The lower Court rejected the same on the ground that the petition under Section 151 CPC is not maintainable and the petitioner should file app...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR331(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation, Trichy, which had issued grazing permits for fees and also sold the firewood, and claimed that the income from the grazing permits should be treated as agricultural income. The Income-tax Officer refused to treat the income as agricultural income in that manner for the assessment year 1978-79. In appeal, the Commissioner treated the income realised from the sale of firewood as agricultural income. The Commissioner found that the entire plantation was a man-made plantation and trees had been cultivated and were not of spontaneous growth. That finding was affirmed by the Tribunal. We see no error in the same. 2. With regard to the grazing permits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had levelled the ground, tilled the soil and thereafter protected the area by erecting fences. It was not a case of spontaneous growth on virgin soil with no contribution whatsoever in terms of human effort. We do not find...
Rukmaniraj Yarn Company Vs. Thangapratap Spinning Mill (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)371; [2000]101CompCas96(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. The accused is the petitioner.2. A complaint was laid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Srivilliputhur, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the complainant runs as follows :3. The accused had dealings with the complainant by purchasing cotton yarn on credit. To discharge the outstanding due on such transaction, the accused issued a cheque dated December 20, 1995, for Rs. 50.000 when the said cheque was presented for collection to the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Salem, it was returned with a memo of dishonour, stating 'funds insufficient'. The accused had issued the cheque knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in his account to meet the demand in the cheque. The complainant received the information of dishonour of cheque on June 21, 1996. The complainant issued a legal notice on June 28, 1996. Therefore, the accused is guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrume...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR780(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue read as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no gift of offering's received by the Vanamamalai Jeer to this Mutt (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee did not, own the funds offered to him, but held out in trust ?' 2. Shri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, Nanguneri, is the head of the Shri Vanamamalai Mutt, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. He created a trust under a deed dated February 29, 1983, named after the presiding deity of the Mutt Shri Aranganagarappan Saswatha Dharmasthapana Trust. The principal object of the trust was to renovate the buildings of the mutt and temples and to establish schools for propagation of Sanskrit and the Vaishnavite tradition. The trust was created with an endowment of Rs. 5,000...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Graf Sales Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR788(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the amount remitted to the assessee by the Indian company with whom it had collaboration agreement on May 28, 1980 was for the transfer outside India of drawings, designs, documentation, etc., relating to the products manufactured by the Indian company in collaboration with the Swiss company and, therefore, the payment made fell under Section 115A(1)(ii) and rejected the Revenue's argument that it falls under Sub-clause (iii) which sub-section refers to fees for technical services. The Tribunal referred to the Explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) which defines 'technical services' and pointed out that what is contemplated is payment for services rendered and not for transfer of any technical know-how as such. The Revenue contends that that view of the Tribunal taken by it in the appeal by the asses-see for the assessment year 1981-82 is erroneous. We do not find any substance in that submission. The reasons given by the Tribunal ...
S.R. Sivasubramaniam and Six ors. Vs. N. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ56
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners/landlords who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority have filed the above revision.2. The landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 24 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller/learned District Munsif, Erode for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlords, the tenant failed to pay the rent for the period from December, 1991 to March, 1992, in spite of the notice issued under Ex.A-1, dated 18.3.1992 and so such default is nothing but wilful. With respect to owners' occupation, the landlord's case was that they require the building for the purpose of the business of the sons of the first and sixth petitioners. The tenant had contested the petition by filing counter. In the counter it is stated that before filing the petition the sixth petitioner had been collecting the rent from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »