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.
A. Leela Vs. Palaniyandi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ564
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 84 of 1995, on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner.2. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the lower court has directed the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 40(1) of the Pondicherry Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and also directed her to pay the deficit court-fee within 15 days from the date of order and amend the plaint accordingly. The lower court further observed that if there was default in complying with that direction, the suit will be dismissed.3. The material averments which are necessary for the purpose of this revision may be summed up as follows:The reliefs sought for in the suit are as hereunder:(1) declaring that the plaintiff's surely for 1st defendant is not enforceable against her;(2) directing the defendant No. 1 to return the title deeds mentioned in the schedule hereunder to the plaintiff;(3) restraining the defendant No. 3 from proceeding against ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Panchavarnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ1189; (1998)IIMLJ180
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Madurai, aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.O.P. No. 682 of 1989, has filed the above appeal. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are briefly stated hereunder:On 6.9.1988 the deceased Balakrishnan boarded the bus TNT 961 belonging to the respondent No. 1 at Tharakudi, Ramanathapuram district. He was to get down at Kallikulam Bridge. The deceased requested the driver to stop the vehicle and the driver also stopped the vehicle. The said Balakrishnan got down the bus and started walking. At that time the driver took the vehicle so rashly and negligently, due to which the vehicle dashed against the deceased and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The deceased died on the spot. The wife, children and mother of the deceased filed petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The insurance company has filed a count...
Packirisamy Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Sri Ranganathan Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ42
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos. 223 and 230 of 1990, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Karaikal.2. Both the above suits were jointly tried and a common judgment was pronounced by the District Munsif on 14.12.1992.3. O.S.No. 223 of 1990 is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by them on the allegation that the property is situated in Resurvey No. 146/11, in T.R. Pattanam. Resurvey No. 146/ 12 is a temple tank belonging to the defendant-Temple and there is a live fence east to west separating the properties, namely, the tank of the defendant-Temple and the land of the plaintiffs. The fence has been in existence for several decades and there are also several trees. The property in question is being looked after by the second plaintiff and plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as owners. It is their case ...
Sitalakshmi Mills Employees Co-operative Stores Limited, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ188
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Nee. Mu. 128445/ 97, dated 5.12.1997 and quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the deponent is the Vice President of the Society. It is said that the employees of Sitalakshmi Mills, Madurai have formed the Society at the mill premises in the year 1962. Employees of the Mills and the retired employees are the Members of the Stores. They own family cards for getting essential commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar and kerosene. For the convenience of the employees and also for the retired employees and also the public in and around the said mill premises, petitioner stores was allotted 1,353 cardholders for the supply of scheduled commodities. Out of 1,353 cardholders, more than 700 cardholders are employees of the said Mills. The r...
A. Sasikumar Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC276
ORDER1. Heard both counsel. A complaint was given by the petitioner on 22.10.1996 to the S.I. of Police, P.R.C. Wing, Cuddalore for the alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 506(II) of I.P.C. and also the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989). After registering the case by the S.I. of Police, P.R.C. Wing, Cuddalore, he later transferred the F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police, Virudhavhalam Police Station, who registered the case in Crime No. 768 of 1997 on the file of Virudhachalam P.S. The learned Government Advocate stated that after investigation by the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam P.S. the case was referred as mistake of fact.Notwithstanding the investigation and final report of the Inspector of Police I am of the view that he has no jurisdiction or power to investigates the matter because it involves the commission of the offience under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven...
K. Veereswaran Vs. N. Subramanian Chettiar and 22 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC393; (1998)IIIMLJ673
ORDER1. The first respondent herein obtained a decree in O.S.No.622 of 1972 against the respondents 2 to 23. After obtaining the decree he filed E.P.No.366 of 1978 and brought the properties of the respondents 2 to 23 for sale. The sale was conducted on 15.10.1990. The petitioner herein purchased the said properties. The first respondent filed an application in E.A.No.866 of 1990 in E.P.No.366 of 1978 in the above suit on the file of the learned III Additional Sub-Judge at Madurai, to set aside the said sale held on 15.10.1990, and deposited the entire amount within 30 days from the date of the said sale, which is in time. That application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the applicant in E.A.No.866 of 1990 has no interest in the said properties and so he cannot entertain that application to set aside the sale. The court below rejected the case of the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 23, and allowed that application. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner her...
Thangapandian and Another Vs. Sri Muthumariamman Idol, Somarasampettai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC454
ORDER1. The above revision has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.950 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court. Tiruchirappalli, challenging the order passed by the learned judge in the court below dated 1.9.1992 in I.A.No.393 of 1992, wherein the plaintiff has been permitted to withdraw the suit O.S.No.950 of 1987 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action in exercise of the powers under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-temple represented by its Executive Officer for recovery of possession of the suit property based on title. It appears that the defendants contested the claim by filing a written statement contending that the plaintiff -temple has no title to the suit property. At that stage, it appears that on verification it was noticed that the description of property as given in the plaint is not complete either in respect of boundaries or in respect of the measurements and this technical...
Rajkumar Nahata and anr. Vs. Harita Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas492(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. Heard the petitioner's counsel. All these five applications were filed by the same petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in five criminal cases pending before the XIVth and XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and the petitioner/A-2 seeks to quash the proceedings in five criminal cases under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The first petition in Crl. O.P. No. 1408 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 by name Rajkumar Nahta, who is said to be the director of the first accused company under the name and style of Mrinal Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited at Bombay to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2263 of 1996 on the file of XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and it relates to the return of a cheque dated November 21, 1995, issued by the first accused company represented by its director the petitioner/A-2 for a sum of Rs. 24,99,013.3. The second petition in Crl. O. P. No. 1409 of 1998 is filed by the very same petitioner under S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR119(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us by the Tribunal for our decision:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 147(b) cannot be invoked in this case and accordingly in cancelling the reassessment made for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'The reassessment referred to in the question was made by the Income-tax Officer on August 20, 1977, while the original assessment had been completed on March 31, 1975, The Income-tax Officer justified the reassessment on the ground that fresh information had been received from the audit party which required the reassessment and, therefore, the reassessment was justified under Section 147(b) of the Act. He also justified it on the ground that where a predecessor officer had committed a mistake and when that mistake is subsequently noticed by another, then it is open to the Department...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR828(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. They relate to the assessment year 1973-74 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the payments of additional sales tax relating to the earlier years should be allowed as a deduction for the assessment year 1973-74 is sustainable in law ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the extra shift allowance of plant and machinery should be granted with reference to the number of days the concern worked and not with reference to the number of days each item of machinery worked in the previous year ?'2. We may dispose of the second question first, as there is no dispute that that question is required to be answered against the Revenue, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]227ITR286(SC) . We, accord...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »