Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
M/S. Tablets India Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank, Rep. by Its Manager, Koyambed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC157; (1998)IIIMLJ356
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the third defendant in O.S.No.1041 of 1987 made an application under Order 8-A, Rule 8 of the court to issue notice to the first defendant in the suit under the said provision and Order 8-A to decide the right to be indemnified. 2. According to the petitioner, the suit is one which involves an issue regarding the petitioners liability for the suit claim and the right to be indemnified by the defendants 1 and 2 and that has to be tried and necessary relief has to be given in favour of the applicant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was resisted by the plaintiff. The lower court rejected the application only on the ground that such an application cannot be maintained against defendants 1 and 2 as they are already parties to the suit. Such an approach is hot sustainable. 3. Rule 1 in order 8-A the Civil Procedure Code is an exception to the well-known principle that the plaintiff is the dominant litus in a suit, it is to be observed that once a party i...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR823(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a tax case reference at me instance or the assessee and the following question of law has been referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1978-79.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accrued interest on hire purchase of machinery on loans and penal interest are liable to be included in the total income, notwithstanding the fact that the due dates of payment fell after 31st of March of the relevant previous year ?'2. The point that arises in the question of law referred to us is whether the accrued interest on hire purchase of machinery as well as the penal interest is liable to be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79. A similar question of law came up for consideration in the assessee's own case in T. C. No. 1102 of 1983 and this court in its judgment dated February 17, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthi Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR487(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the notice issued by the respondent as per P. A, No. 47-005-AZ-5117 dated. December 8, 1988, is valid, in demanding the petitioner for the production of the documents listed as items Nos. 1 and 2 in the said notice.2. The assessee had already filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 1222 of 1979 (Thanthi Trust v. ITO : [1989]177ITR307(Mad) , before this honourable court and the Division Bench of this High Court has passed the following orders wherein paragraph 41 reads as follows (page 337) :'In our view, on a very careful consideration, the notices for the assessment years 1969-70, 1971-72 and 1972-73 have to be held to be invalid because the reasons do not have a live link or a close nexus. However, for 1970-71, we have to uphold the notice since in paragraph 3 of that notice reference is made to the two promissory notes which have not been brought into account. That will show that the appellant had not sub...
Tag this Judgment!R. Surendirakumar Vs. C. Balaji Singh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ475
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. There were three Rent Control Petitions being R.C.O.P. No. 48 of 1988, R.C.O.P. No. 49 of 1988 and R.C.O.P. No. 51 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tirupattur. The petitioner in each of these three cases is the same landlord. The respondent in each of these three cases are three separate tenants respectively. In all these three cases, eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for owner's occupation of a non-residential building from each of the tenant. The Rent Controller agreed with the landlord in all the three cases on both the grounds and ordered eviction. Each of the tenant filed three independent appeals and that were taken on file as R.C.A. No. 4 of 1992, R.C.A. No. 5 of 1992 and R.C.A. No. 3 of 1992. All the three appeals were allowed on merits and therefore these revisions before this Court namely, C.R.P. No. 3137 of 1993, C.R.P. No. 3145 of 1993 and C.R.P. No. 3577 of 1993.2. I heard...
Tag this Judgment!M. Periaswamy Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ210
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. In the above writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the confirmation order in favour of the petitioner relating to the grant of the stone quarry in S.F.No. 48, in M. Puthur Village, Musiri Taluk as notified in Serial No. 23 in Schedule II of the notification published in Thiruchirapalli Perumpidugu Mutharaiyar District Gazette No. 2, dated 19.5.1997 and to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner.3. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows: The first respondents invited applications for grant of lease of stone quarry locate in S.F.No. 48, in M. Puthur village, Musiri Taluk as notified in Serial No. 23 in Schedule II of the Notification published in Thiruchirapalli Perumpidugu Mutharaiyar District Gazette No. 2 dated 19.5.1997 in exercise of power under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules.4. In pursuance of the said notification, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Naidu (Deceased) and 9 Others Vs. Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC394; (1998)IIMLJ121
ORDER1. The first petitioner who is the tenant and in possession of the land in question, aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.656 of 1986 in O.S.No.947 of 1975, has filed the above revision.2. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.947 of 1975 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vellore for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from thevacant site in question wherein the petitioner has put up his own superstructure. The petitioner filed I.A.No.180 of 1976 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act seeking an order to direct the respondent/landlord to sell the site for value to be fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the trial court in the said application fixed the market value of the site to be sold to the tenant at Rs.7 per sq.ft., in its order dated 31.3.1978. This amount was directed to be paid in six months in three instalments, of two months intervals. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed appea1 in C.M.A.No.31 of 1979 and the landlord filed another appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Arputharaj Vs. State by Inspector of Police, K-1 Anna Nagar Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC409
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused in P.R.C.No.l of 1994 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VII at Madurai and this application is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the Respondent police to furnish Tamil translation copies of final report and the statement of the doctors recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the accident report and the wound certificate of Palaniappan.2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in P.R.C.No. l of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VII at Madurai for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. The only ground that is raged in the affidavit of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate andhe could not read and write English, and because of his illiteracy he was unable to read and understand the gist of the changes against him and also he was not able to understand the statements of the doctors. Now where in the affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that h...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Goundar Vs. Poosari @ Palaniappan and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC477; (1998)IIMLJ351
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 107 of 1982 on the file of the district Munsif, Mettur is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the said suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial Court after holding that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit he filed appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was also dismissed. Againstthe concurrent findings of both the Courts below the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present second appeal as stated above.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:According to him an extent of 1 acre 10 cents in Survey No.4/10 and another 2 acres in Survey No.12/1 are the subject matter of the suit properties. The suit properties belongs to one Shanmugam. The said Shanmugam on 20.1.1979 leased out the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for the lease amount of Rs. 300 per year. Further, the had also entered into an agreement of sale...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.K.S. Baskaran (Died) and 4 Others Vs. N.Thirugnanasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC517
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.399 of 1981 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thirumangalam, who is no more and whose legal representatives are pursuing this appeal, had filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.202 of 1983, where under the learned first appellate Judge has chosen to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the suit filed for a decree to direct the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property after removing all the superstructures therein within the time stipulated and for a mandatory injunction also for the removal of the superstructures put up by him.2. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and even according to the averments in the plaint, it has been admittedly let out to the defendant for the purpose of running a saw-mill. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy is as per. the English calendar month, the monthly rent being Rs. 125 to be paid on or before the 5th ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Namagiri Lakshmi Vs. PravIn Harilal Mehta and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC595; (1998)IIMLJ176
ORDER1. The landlady, aggrieved against the order rejecting her eviction petition filed against the tenants, has filed the above revision.2. The premises in question originally belonged to the husband of the landlady, and after his death, his sons and daughters inherited the same. Thelandlady filed the eviction petition to evict the tenants on the ground that she requires the respective premises for demolition and reconstruction. In the petitions she has stated that the premises are very old and in a dilapidated condition. So she wants to demolish and reconstruct the same as multi-storeyed ones. According to her, the premises are in the verge of falling down. The said petitions were resisted by the respective tenants by filing respective counters in the respective cases. The main defence that was taken in the counters was that the requirement of the landlady is not true, genuine or bona fide. According to them, the premises are in good and habitable condition and well-maintained. The l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »