Chennai Court March 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.
Registrar of Companies Vs. Rajashree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas713(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J.1. This criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated March 30, 1993, passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2007 of 1992 in C. C. No. 371 of 1992 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore, as time-barred.2. The revision petitioner, Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore, filed a complaint against the respondents that they have committed lapses punishable under Section 113 of the Companies Act on the ground that share certificates were not despatched within two months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, the then Nilgiris, took the case on file as C. C. No. 371 of 1992, The respondent/accused filed an interlocutory application in Crl. M. P. No. 2007 of 1992 alleging that the offence under Section 113 of the Companies Act is punishable with fine only and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been lodged within six months from the date of the offence.3. The revision petitioner filed a counter stating...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sulzer Brother Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR941(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. These tax case petitions, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras, are for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common question of law, as below, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the technical service fee paid by the BHEL to the engineering personnel of Sulzer Brother Ltd., are not taxable under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The Tribunal, while rejecting the reference application, stated as below : 'This question only challenges the finding of fact that the agreement was concluded prior to April 1, 1976, and cannot be referred as a question of law. The applications are rejected.'2. Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) for short ('the I. T. Act'), deals with a situation, when income is deemed to accrue or arise in India. So far as the instant case is c...
Tajunnisa and anr. Vs. K.S. Ramamoorthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ638
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No. 319 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy to evict the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and requirement of the building for his own. occupation. The case of the respondent is that the monthly rent is Rs. 275 and the petitioner did not pay the rent for the period from 1.11986 to 31.10.1986 and hence the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the monthly rent is only Rs. 175 and the claim of the landlord is much higher than the agreed rent, which the petitioner is not liable to pay. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record the Rent Controller by his order dated 30.9.1994 has allowed the R.C.O.P. and ordered eviction, finding that the agreed rent is Rs. 275 per month and the petitioner has failed to pay the rent from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1986 and as suc...
Late T. Govindaswamy by Lrs Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mad)396
ORDERP.K BANSAL, AM:These appeals have been instituted by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) relating to the asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1976-77. Since one of the grounds of appeal is common for all the three years, for the sake of convenience we dispose of all these appeals by this common order.2. The main common ground of appeal relates to the property No. 4, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Madras and the income therefrom, i.e., whether it belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity or belonged to the HUF, of which the appellant was the Karta, along with of his wife Smt. G. Subbulakshn in an equal ratio. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the CIT(A) held that half of the property belonged to the wife of the assessee and against which the Department has not come in appeal. Therefore, the only dispute remains related to the claim of the assessee in respect of the half share in the property belonging to the HUF.3. For the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 we direct the AO to treat the half share ...
B. C. Munirathinam Naidu Vs. Chengalpattu Electricity System a Body Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC586
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S.No.872 of 1978 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee, for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction against the respondents herein averring as follows:-The appellant had three service connections as set out in plaint A schedule and they were all agricultural services. The respondents disconnected the lines mentioned in A schedule in or about February 1978 without assigning any reason whatsoever. The respondents required the appellant to pay certaindisputed bills in respect of a bulk load. There was also a suit pending in the Sub-Court, Chingleput, in respect of the said disputed bills. However, the respondents were not entitled to cut off the A schedule services on the ground that the other arrears had not been paid. The respondents were therefore liable to restore the A schedule services. The appellant had another service as set out in schedule B. That also could not be disconnected on the ground of alleged non-paymen...
Thirumani Vs. Narayana Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad378; 1998(2)CTC76; (1998)IIIMLJ11
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit on a promissory note. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit promissory note was note a genuine one and he, being an agriculturist, is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. Having accepted the plea of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit.2. Though the lower appellate Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff that the suit promissory not was a genuine one, it gave a finding on the basis of Ex.B.12 to Ex.B.17 that the defendant owns properties only worth about Rs.13,000 which are less than Rs.25,000, the amount prescribed under the Act 13 of 1980 and hence, the respondent herein is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. This is challenged by the plaintiff/appellant herein.3. The counsel for the appellant would press into...
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme, Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC99
ORDER1. These three appeals have arisen against the decisions of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Srivilliputhur, in references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Act 2 of 1894.2. We will first notice the details relating to A.S.No.891 of 1989 which is against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in L.A.O.P.No.72 of 1987. The Special Tahsildar, Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme, Unit-I, Srivilliputhur is the appellant. Irrigated garden lands in smallbits in S.Nos.1041/2-B belonging to the respondent were acquired. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 10.8.1983 and the award was passed on 26.5.1986 in Award No.12 of 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value per acre at Rs.5,000 and worked out the award amount at Rs.6,786.70. At the instance of the respondent there was a reference to the Subordinate Judge's Court under section 18 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000 per acre. Aggrieved the a...
Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. B. Anandathanadavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC6
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The defendants 1, 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 152/1960 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram are the appellants herein. The respondents herein had filed the said suit, claiming partition of 2/3rd share. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 31-3-1962. Subsequently a final decree was also passed on 15-4-1964 in LA. 828/1962. The respondents took possession of the properties on 26-12-1974. So far as items 4 to 8, 15, 17, 25 and 26 of the plaint schedule properties are concerned, because of the pendency of the second appeal which was disposed of in the year 1967, the final decree was passed separately on 15-7-76 in LA. 542/1969. The respondents took possession of their share in the above said items on 22-9-1976.2. After taking delivery, the respondents filed an application I.A. 3183/82 for ascertainment of the mesne profits from 25-11-59 to 22-9-76. The trial Court granted a decree for mesne profits subject to payment of court fees. Aggrieved by the sa...
B. Narayanaswamy Raju and ors. Vs. M. Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar Alias M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ328
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The suit is for declaration, injunction, possession and damage.2. The short facts sufficient for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows : Deceased first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff Narayanaswamy Raju and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are their children. They were added as the legal representatives of the first plaintiff, after death. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased the premises No. 60, Alwarpet Street, the front portion abutting the street, bearing the municipal door No. 2/ 60, now named as Pillaiyar Koil Street from defendants 2 and 3 on 3.3.1962. The first plaintiff was put in possession of the said property. They were enjoying the suit property along with the vacant site measuring 7 feet by 33 feet on the western side of the suit property and passage on the south and vacant site on the front with easement rights appurtenances thereto. In 1967, the first defendant purchased the back p...
K. Govindaswamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ323
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23.6.1988 in RC.A9/05370/ 88 as confirmed by he second respondent in his Order dated 9.11.1988 by issuance of a writ of certiorari on various grounds.2. According to the petitioner, when he was working as a time-scale Bill Clerk under the control of the first respondent on 25.2.1988, he was suspended from service for certain alleged irregularities in the Chief Minister's Nutritious Meal Scheme at Century Flour Mills' Godown. Thereafter, on 25.3.1988, he was served with a charge memo alleging pilfering and under-weighment in the stocks allotted to the Chief Minister's Nutritious meal centres and thereby gained excess stocks for personal benefit. He was also charged with misappropriation of stocks and proved to be an untrustworthy employee of the Corporation. Along with the said charge memo a Questionnaire form was furnished to him in which h...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »