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.
Chinnaswami Naidu Vs. Rengarajalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ644
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No.88 of 1978, on the file of District Munsif, Kallakurichi, is the appellant. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule two items. In this appeal we are only concerned with item No. 1 of the plaint schedule.2. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers, and in a partition deed evidenced by Ex.A-1, the plaintiff alleges that plaint item No. 1 was allotted to him exclusively. The defendant who is his elder brother trespassed into the property and began to appropriate the income. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A-2, dated 16.2.1973, for which the appellant sent a reply on 1.3.1973, alleging that plaint item No. 1 is allotted towards his share, and he is enjoying the same as its owner. It is further stated in the plaint that plaint item No. 1 seems to have allotted and included in both the schedule of plaintiff and defendant, and therefore, he will be satisfied, if he is ...
Muniappa Naciker Vs. Balakrishna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ388
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 476 of 1974, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Kallakkurichi, is the appellant.2. Plaintiff and defendant are brothers, and they are the sons of Thulasi Naicker. It is the case of the plaintiff that he acquired the plaint schedule properties under Exx.A.1 to A.25, between the period 1943 to 1967 and the defendant is interfering with his possession. It is also the plaintiff's case that all the properties are his self-acquisitions, and his father died only about ten years prior to the institution of the suit and he was managing the family. It is his further case that he is doing business even from his young age, in paddy, groundnut, gingelly and jaggery, and out of the income earned from the business, he was in a position to acquire all these items. None of these items are family properties, nor were they purchased from out of the family income, nor was he the manager at that time. The family had only two items of properties, i.e., Ac. 1-43...
Kasthuri Naidu (Died) and ors.. Vs. N. Padmanabhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ403
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1433 of 1980, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, filed the Second Appeal. Subsequently he died, and his legal representatives, viz., appellants 2 to 7 have further prosecuted the second appeal.2. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming half share in the plaint items which are described as B, C and D Schedules. A preliminary decree was passed only in respect of B Schedule. Regarding C and D Schedule items, the suit was dismissed. The matter was taken in appeal but without success. The concurrent judgments of both the courts below are challenged in this second appeal.3. Plaintiff Kasthuri Naidu, first defendant's father Narayanaswami Naidu and one Ramasami Naidu are the sons of one Sama Naidu. They constituted a Joint Hindu Family. Ramasami died issueless. His wife also pre-deceased him. That is why the plaintiff claims half share.4. Under Ex.A-1, a settlement deed was executed by the uncle of Sama Naidu. He obtained the plaint B ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Collector Vs. K. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ515
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 205 of 1978, on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the plaintiff is one for declaration and injunction. The subject matter of the suit is a portion of T.S.No. 983/1. According to the plaintiff, himself and his predecessors have been in possession of the subject matter of the suit for the last more than 50 years, and even if the defendant-State has got any title over that property, the same is lost by adverse possession.3. In the written statement of the appellant (defendant), it is contended that T.S.No. 983/1 is Natham Poramboke and it is used by washermen community, for the purpose of washing clothes and drying the same. It is also the case of the defendant that all the encroachers have been evicted, and even the plaintiff's predecessor was also dispossessed pursuant to the action taken by the Government. It contended that the plaintiff has no title to the property, nor possession. It prayed for dismissal of the ...
Ms. Nivedita, Represented by Mother Ms. Asha Raja Kumar and ors Vs. So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ465
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, by South Indian Bank Ltd. against five respondents. The 1st respondent is a private limited company. Respondents 3 and 5 are man and wife and respondents 2 and 4 are their sons. For the purpose of giving financial assistance to the company, the 3rd respondent in the O.A., along with respondents 2, 4 and 5 executed mortgages for securing the loan. When default was committed, the application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of an amount of nearly Rs. 66 lakhs, with future interest and costs. The said original application is pending consideration before the Said Tribunal, While so, an application was also filed by the revision petitioners herein who are the younger children of respondents 4 and 6 herein that the mortgage executed by their father is not for necessity or consideration and the same is ...
E. Jeevadhas and anr. Vs. G. Babu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ526
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these second appeals arise out of the same suit in O.S.No. 392 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. In S.A.No. 2226 of 1983 the appellants are defendants 5 and 6, and in S.A.No. 59 of 1984, the appellants are defendants 1 and 2. The description of parties will be according to their rank in the suit.2. Plaintiffs two in number filed the suit for declaration of their title and possession and also for partition. The plaint schedule properties are three in number. Item No. 1 is northern-most 1 acre, 32 cents, which is 1/3rd of the total extent in S.No. 4666 of Mehtukummal Village. Item No. 2 is another 1/3rd in S.No. 4667, in the northern 50 cents. Item No. 3 is the eastern-most 96 cents, which is 1/3rd portion of S.No. 4668. All these properties originally belonged to one Mallan Neelakantan's family by name Pilloor house. From that family a mortgage was executed in favour of one Padmanabban Thaveethu as per Ex.A-1 dated 4.1.1064 M.E. Th...
Hemamalini Vs. Swaminathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ78
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second plaintiff in O.S. No.289 of 1979, on the file of Sub Court, Mayuram, is the appellant.2. One Mahadeva Sastrigal died on 11.8.1973 leaving Lakshmi Ammal as his widow, two sons by name Seshagiri and Swaminathan, who are respectively defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and two daughters Sankari and Rukmani; who are defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Long before the death of Mahadeva Sastrigal, he and defendants 1 and 2 had entered into a deed of partition, as evidenced by Ex. A-5 dated 15.7.1953. The plaint schedule properties are the properties retained by Mahadeva Sastrigal under the said deed.3. The suit was filed by Lakshmi Ammal (widow of Mahadeva Sastrigal), claiming one-fifth share in the plaint schedule properties on the ground that she is Schedule 1 heir under Hindu Succession Act and alleging that Mahadeva Sastri died intestate. Pending litigation, Lakshmi Ammal died, and, on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by her, under Ex.A-1 dated 26.3.1...
M/S. Sesiah and Sons Rep. by Its Partner S. Bennet Vs. the Chairman, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC412; (1998)IIIMLJ485
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of two orders, one bearing No.SECH/E2/A1/FNGL/Accept No.18A/97-98, d- 1290, dated 20.9.97 and the other bearing No.SECH/E2-A1/FNGL/Accept No. 18A/97-98 d-1402/97, dated 8.10.97, passed by Respondent No.2 cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner herein and rejecting the representation of the petitioner to re-consider the order of cancellation.2. The question for determination in this writ petition is whether the cancellation of the building contract awarded to the petitioner is sustainable in law?3. The relevant facts for determination of the question involved are stated thus: The Chief Engineer (Civil Designs), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board called for tenders for the construction of Central Office Building for Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution circle at Nagarcoil, costing over a crore of rupees. The petitioner firm submitted its tender for Rs. 1,22,57,000 by depositing the E.M.D. of Rs.1,00,000 fully complying with the requi...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR89(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu, J. Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1990 :1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem, against the order of acquittal passed in F.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989. The case of the complainant is that the first accused is a private limited company engaged in running a spinning mill in the name and the style of 'Jawahar Mills Limited'. The second, third and fourth accused are the principal officers of the first accused who are responsible for the conduct of the business. The provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prescribed the mode of acceptance of any deposit or loan by the income-tax assessee. The above provision has come into force with effect from April 1, 1984. On scrutiny of the books of account of the first accused company for the year March 31, 1985, it was noticed that the first accused accepted the deposit of Rs. 10,000 or more violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. In the case of Vaiya-puri...
Mir Akram Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ603
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above revision is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 in Appeal No. 1057 of 1981 dated 30.10.1982, in which the order of the State Transport Authority, Madras was confirmed.2. The petitioner applied on 22.10.1977 for grant of counter-signature of permit in respect of his stage carriage MYA.3525 to ply on the inter-state route from Bangalore to Hosur Cattle Farm, viz., Attibelle and Hosur. The State Transport Authority, Karnataka issued a permit to the petitioner for plying the said carriage on the said route. So he filed an application for counter-signature. The State Transport Authority, Madras rejected the same on the ground that the route is entirely covered by draft scheme and there is a ban under Section 68(F)(1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. 1057 of 1981 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Appellate Tribu...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »