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.
Aruna Fertilizer Agencies, Shencottah, Through Its Partner A. Subraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ25
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,210 with interest at 12% per annum. The lower court dismissed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff, the appellant herein, challenging the concurrent judgments by which he has lost in both the courts below, filed this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is this:The appellant/plaintiff is the firm dealing in fertilizer. On 19.10.1979 the first respondent/first defendant, who is the dealer in fertilizer, purchased complex Fertilizer from the appellant. The first defendant despite the receipt of consignment, did not pay the amount due to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff sent a telegram to the first defendant, who in turn, sent a reply that he paid the amount to the second defendant. The second defendant was not authorised to receive payment from the first defendant. So, the plaintiff sent the ...
M/S. Incomm Business Services Rep. by Its Proprietor T.K. Choudry Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC367
ORDER1. Though this petition is listed for admission, since the pleadings are complete, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.2. This petition is for a direction to the respondents to restore telephone connection bearing No.568990. The case of the petitioner is that it was given a bill on 1.1.1998 for a sum of Rs.10,530. The bill has got to be paid on or before 21.1.1998 and it issued a cheque for the said amount and the same was returned by the banker with the remark 'effects not cleared'. The petitionerwas informed on 27.1.1998 over phone about the return of the cheque. On receipt of the information, the petitioner sent its representative one Mr. Shanmugam and collected the duplicate copy of the bill dated 1.1.1998 for a sum of Rs. 10,300 plus Rs.400 as late fee surcharge. A demand note for a sum of Rs.19,200 towards security deposit also was issued based on the average of six previous bi-monthly bills. The petitioner has paid the bill amount on 29.1....
K. Kalimuthu (Died) and 4 Others Vs. Athmajothi Alias Krishnamurthy an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC558; (1998)IIMLJ520
ORDER1 Heard both the parties.2 The above revision is directed against the order of sale proclamation dated 10.10.96 in E.P.No.285 of 1994 to execute the decree made in O.S.No.l60 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, for an admitted total sum of Rs.22,260 as on 10.10.96.3 I am rather surprised to note that even before the date of the said sale proclamation dated 10.10.96, the revision petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.22,500 with the learned District Munsif Court at Mannargudi, to the credit of the above suit, namely O.S.No.160 of 1981. But still, the execution Court, namely the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, overlooked that deposit and passed a sale proclamation on 10.10.96. Hence, the above revision.4 The learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contends that in view of Order 21, Ride 55, C.P.C., where, once an amount decreed with costs are paid into the Court, the attachment shall be deemed to be withdraw. As admittedly, in the instant case, ...
Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Manoranjitham Ammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC200
ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 instituted the suit O.S.No.32 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram against the appellant herein for recovery of possession of four items of suit properties, for recovery of Rs.9,000 towards past mesne profits and for future mesne profits.2. The trial court dismissed the suit in respect of the suit item 1 and 2 and decreed the suit in respect of the suit items 3 and 4, besides relegated the parties for ascertainment of mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 1, CPC. The respondents preferred A.S.No.167 of 1983 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore. The appellant herein preferred cross Objections. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree as prayed forpossession in respect of the four items and relegated the claim of mesne profits by proceedings under Order 20, Rule 12, CPC.3. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. For convenience, the parties wi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarathy Palayacot Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR155(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Sarathy Palayacot Co., Cuddalore, is a registered firm. It has a branch at Singapore. It manufactures goods at Madras and effects sale of its products at Singapore, through its branch there.2. In computing the income of the previous year ended April 13, 1974, corresponding to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee's assessable profits at the branch at Singapore were to the tune of 1,07,339 Singapore dollars, which were converted in Indian currency at Rs. 244 per hundred Singapore dollars and valued at Rs. 1,69,143 in the profit and loss adjustment statement.3. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the conversion should have been at the rate of Rs. 387 per hundred Singapore dollars, which were prevalent during the said period and he accordingly made an addition of Rs. 1,53,494.4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Madras 34, noted that there was an Instruction No. 1154, dated March 10, 1978, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to...
Padma and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4335
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Cri. M.P. No. 1225/98 : Petition for direction to release the petitioner from custody holding that after computing the period of remission passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 279/92, 296/93 and 205/ 94, the petitioner need not serve the sentence.Cri. M.P. No. 1468/98 :- Petition to grant remission to the petitioner in view of the Government order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on various dates.Crl. O.P. 1854/98 :- Petition filed to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms. Nos. 781, 279, 296 and 205 and release the petitioner's husband forthwith on the basis of the remission of sentence and award damages and costs for keeping him inside the prison from 8-9-97 onwards without calculating the remission period in accordance with the Government orders.2. The case of the petitioners in brief in all the applications is as follows:The petitioner in Cri. M.P. No. 1225/98 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year...
B. Devendrakumar Vs. R. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ578
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved against the order of the court below, directing him to pay the additional court-fee for the future mesne profits determined at the rate of Rs. 15,000 p.m. from December 1993, till date of decree, has filed the above revision.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 952 of 1993 on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Dindigul praying for a decree for possession of the land in question, for damages for use and occupation for the months of October and November, 1993 and for future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month from the date of the plaint till date of delivery of possession of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. In the plaint, the plaintiff has paid the court-fee towards recovery of future damages under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The plaintiff undertook to pay necessary court fee for future damages from the date of the su...
Lingammal and 7 Others Vs. Periappappa @ Lingammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC345; (1998)IIIMLJ650
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri in I.A.No.628 of 1994 in I.A.No.524 of 1992 in O.S.No.190 of 1981 on 10.11.1994. The respondents herein filed an application before the lower court praying for amendment of the plaint, final decree application and preliminary decree. The petitioners case is that there is some clerical error in the description of property. Therefore, it has to be suitably amended. This application was opposed by the petitioners herein and overruling the objections, the petition was ordered as prayed for.2. The point for determination is: whether the order passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside?3. Point; The suit was filed for petition in the year 1981. The preliminary decree was passed on 16.12.1985. An appeal was preferred against the said preliminary decree in A.S.No. 9 of 1988. The appellate court modified the decree of the trial court by its judgment dated 28.2.1990. An application was filed b...
Kesavan Vs. Kodiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ708
ORDERM. Karpagavinaygam, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants 4, 8 and 9 respectively.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 476 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Ulundurpet for partition against the defendants 1 to 10. The suit was decreed ex parte. The respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I. A.No. 893 of 1995 to condone the delay of 852 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. A conditional order was passed on 9.1.1997 by the lower court. On complying with the condition imposed, the petition came to be allowed on 21.2.1997. The plaintiff, the petitioner herein has challenged these impugned orders in these revisions before this Court.3. Mr. Dhanyakumar, the counsel for the petitioner, while attacking the impugned orders, would bring to the notice of this Court that a similar petition to condone the delay filed by the first respondent, the fourth defendant, was earlier di...
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zone, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ551
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Second defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in O.S.No. 376 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent herein/ plaintiff in that suit filed the same for declaration to declare that his date of birth is 30.10.1928 and consequential mandatory direction to make necessary correction in the Service Book of the second defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit and in the appeal at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, he is the fourth son of his parents PS.V.R. Somasundaram Chettiar and Meenakshi Achi. On the date of the suit he has completed 52 years. His correct date of birth as per horoscope is 30.10.1928. However, while joining the school his neighbour, who took him to the school, has informed that his date of birth is 15.6....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »