Chennai Court February 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.
Somasundaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ562
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The impugned order dated 27.2.1997 in I.A.No. 1059 of 1996 in O.S.No. 172 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Virudhunagar, dismissing the application for impleading the second petitioner herein, is challenged before this Court in this revision.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the first petitioner herein, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property, claiming himself as the adopted son of Gurusamy Chettiar and Guruvammal. The defendant, the first petitioner herein, disputed the alleged adoption and contended that the said Guruvammal executed a Will on 21.2.1985 in favour of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who is the second petitioner herein and that after the death of the said Guruvammal, the second petitioner herein handed over the properties to the possession of the first petitioner after entering into an agreement of sale. During the course of trial, the first petition...
V. Sreenivasan Vs. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ77
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The defendant who has lost in both the Courts below is the appellant herein the second appeal.2. The plaintiff, the respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 331 of 1994 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Srivilliputhur, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the appellant herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant, the appellant herein resisted the suit by contending that the respondent encroached the suit property which is a Odai Poramboke and that he having owned the adjacent property, is entitled to drain water through the Odai Poramboke.3. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff and Exs.A-1 to A-6 and the evidence of D.W.1, the defendant and Exs.B-1 and B-2, held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for.4. Being aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No. 184 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, ...
The Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ745
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 58 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam and the appellant in R.C.A. No. 39 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (District Judge) Uthagamandalam. The respondent is the petitioner/ landlord in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The tenant suffered an order of eviction on two grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of rent as well as on the ground, of additional accommodation, rendered by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The correctness of the orders referred to above are questioned in this revision.2. The agreed rent is Rs. 230 p.m. from January, 1987 till January, 1988 the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord issued a notice dated 14.12.1987, through his lawyer demanding the arrears of rent upto that date as well as for t...
N. Ramachandran Vs. Munisamy and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ521
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and final order passed in O.S.No. 343 of 1994 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputur on 9.12.1996.2. The petitioner who is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 343 of 1994 on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Srivilliputur seeking for the relief of reopening of the partition deed dated 11.12.1991 and for effecting a fresh partition in respect of all the suit properties and allotting the petitioner's share of 1/7 in the suit properties and for mesne profits.3. The petitioner paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 200 under Section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for mesne profits a court-fee of Rs. 8 was paid under Section 22 of the Act.4. The respondents herein resisted the claim by filing a written statement. When the suit was pending, a check-slip was issued for the deficit court-fee to the tune of Rs. 73,373.75...
Dhandapani Udayar and anr. Vs. Annammal, Minor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ83
1. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.9.1993 in O.P.No. 34 of 1991 refusing to permit the plaintiffs to sue as paupers.2. The suit is for recovery of possession. The court fee required to be paid is Rs. 5,625.75. The appellants stated that they are not in possession of the property. Thus they have no means to pay the court fees. The counter was filed by the respondent contending that they have obtained a decree on the file of the Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No. 173 of 1991 on 6.11.1992. The learned Subordinate Judge who passed the order on 21.1.1993, had taken note of this decree and held that since they are in posses treated as indigent persons. Hence he rejected the claim of the petitioners. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere obtaining a decree is not possessing the means to raise funds. According to him, obtaining a decree for possession of a property does not mean that the appellants are in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR111(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to us for our consideration :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest under section 217(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be charged in this case on the ground that no such interest can be charged in a case where the assessee filed an estimate as required under section 212(3A), but failed to pay the tax as per such estimate ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interpretation of the provisions of section 217(1A) does not give scope for any controversy or debate and hence, if it is noticed that the levy of interest under the said section was contrary to law, the mistake can be rectified under section 154 ?'The assessment year in question is 1975-76. The assessee after paying the advance tax demanded, had also filed an ...
A. Chinnarajan Vs. N. S. Subbaiyah and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC375
ORDER1. This Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palni. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff's and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and sized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Or.20, Rule 12, C.P.C., and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus:-First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964. Plaint schedule propert...
Mangalambal Vs. Anjali Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC679
ORDER1. Landlady who lost her case before the Appellate Authority, hascome to this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment ofthe Appellate Authority.2. Eviction petition was filed against the tenant on the ground that the building is required for the occupation of the landlady's daughter, Bhanumathi, who needs regular treatment and constant attention by her parents. The present space is insufficient to accommodate Bhanumathi and, therefore, the portion in the occupation of the tenant is required for the additional accommodation of the revision petitioner/landlady.3. In defence, respondent contended that the building was let out to her for non-residential purpose. The present requirement of the landlady being residential, eviction cannot be ordered. At any rate, the claim is not bona fide. 4. Rent Controller, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is a genuine. He found that Bhanumathi, daughter of the landlady, is not having a...
M.R. Devarajan Vs. M. Palani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC415; (1998)IIIMLJ678
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the landlord/petitioner in RCOP No.3177 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller (14th Judge Court of Small Causes) Madras and the respondent in RCOP No.327 of 1989 on the file of the appellate authority (7th Judge, court of Small Causes) Madras. The first respondent in this revision petition is the second respondent before the Rent Controller and the second respondent herein is the first respondent before the Rent Controller. The revision petitioner is the landlord; the second respondent is the chief tenant and the first respondent is the alleged sub-tenant. In this order, the parties to this revision are described as the landlord, chief tenant and sub-tenant.2. The landlord filed the eviction petition seeking eviction on two grounds namely, wilful default in payment of the rent and unauthorised sub-letting. The chief tenant remained absent and ex parte even before the Rent Controller. The case of the landlord is that the agreed rent is Rs.110 per ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.T. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [2002]255ITR651(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the assessee's assessments for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 is, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the arrears of dividends on cumulative preference shares should be deducted while working out the value of the shares of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. ?2. The assessee held 250 shares in the company. He had worked out the market value by applying Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, framed under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and did not deduct the arrears of dividends on the cumulative preference shares held by him, for the liabilities shown in the balance-sheet. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the amount could not be deducted as undeclared dividend for which monies had been set apart by the company, as the dividends had not been declared as on the valuation date of a general meeting of the company. The assessee appeale...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »