Chennai Court August 1998 Judgments
M. Singaperumal and Three Others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC498
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus direct the first respondent to prescribe the Authority to whom deposit of rents has to be made under section 9(3), of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. According to the petitioners they are tenants in the premises No.54, Sudiamman Pet Street, Saidapet, Madras-15 paying monthly rent of Rs.70, Rs.110 and Rs.120 respectively. The tenancy of all the petitioners are residential and calculated according to English calendar month. It is stated that the third respondent was collecting rent from the petitioners and other tenants. The third respondent was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the payment of rent and no receipt was also issued for the payment of advance. The petitioners paid rents regularly till the end of August, 1988 to the third respondent. At this juncture the second respondent issued a notice and demanded payment of rent from the petitioners and other tenants claiming that ...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Daniel Vs. Balakrishan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC337
ORDER1. This civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the fair and decretal order made in C.M.A.No.175 of 1995 by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, on 7.2.1996, dismissing the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and vacating the interim injuction granted in I.A. No.788 of 1995 in O.S.No.551 of 1995 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 29.6.1995.2. The suit O.S.No.551 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendants etc., from evicting him unlawfully or interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property i.e., Ground and premises bearing door No.74, 'G' Block, Anna Nagar East, Madras - 102. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to one R.P. Samuel, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Mr. Samuel constructed the residential house for which construction plaintiff lent Rs.65,000. Mr. Samuel permitted the plaintiff to occupy the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is occupying ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vasanthakumari Vs. the Director of Government Examinations, College ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC706
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of respondent in Na.Ka.No.358104/E1/97 dated 23.12.1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue Duplicate Diploma Teacher Education Examination Marksheet to the petitioner bearing Registration No.l1049/89 as per her application dated 6.8.1997.2. Petitioner after her completion of the Higher Secondary Examination underwent Teacher Training Course from 1987 to 1989 in Syro MalabarMission Jubilee Memorial Teacher Training Institute, Varuthattu, Medukummal Post, Kanyakumari District. During the said period, the said Institute was recognised. Petitioner also wrote her Examination in April 1989 and obtained First Class marks. The result of the petitioner alongwith other candidates was ordered to be published in W.P.No.5271 of 1991 dated 18.4.1991. Consequently, the respondent published the results and also issued the Diploma Certificate on 31.10.1991....
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Murugesan and 6 Others Vs. E. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC123
ORDER1. Even though the petition posted was only to dispense with the production of the original Order, maintainability of the review application itself was heard even at its SR stage. 2. Against an order of ad-interim injunction, a Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of ad-interim injunction, police protection was also granted by trial Court, against which also a revision petition was field. Both the revisions were heard by me, and I allowedthose Revisions, namely, C.R.P.Nos.997 and 998 of 1998 as per my order dated 14-7-1998. I gave certain directions to the lower Court that the property itself will have to be redelivered and the revision petitioner (E.K.Palanisami) must be put in possession forthwith, and without any farther application, and if necessary, he must be restored with possesion of the property with police help, 3. It is not disputed by the review petitioners herein that against the common order passed by me in the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Nesammal and Another Vs. Edward and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC165
ORDER1. The Plaintiffs in Civil Filing No.8269 of 1997 on the file of principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai are the Revision Petitioners. This revision is filled under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. The impugned order is rejecting the Plaint on the ground that for the same issue, there was adjudication and therefore the suit is prima facie barred. The same is challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is not disputed by the plaintiff/petitioners that between them and the respondents herein there is an earlier suit in O.S.2 of 1983. The suit was decreed, taken appeal without success and confirmed by me in second appeal No.874 of 1994. The present plaintiffs were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased appellant in that case. After a detailed discussion of the entire matter. I held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the decree granted in the suit is not liable to be interfered with. An argument was also taken before me that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Gopibai Kundandas Vs. Syed Shafiullah and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC537
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Both the original side appeals are directed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.123 of 1980, Second defendant in the suit is the appellant in O.S.A.No. 150 of 1990 and first defendant is the appellant in O.S.A.No.152 of 1990.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is carrying on business as watch dealer. The first defendant is owner of the property bearing Door No.20, New No. 12, Errasappa Maistry Street, (Rattan Bazaar), Madras 600 003. Agreements of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the suit property consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. Two agreements of sale were entered into, one respect of the ground floor and another in respect of the first and second floors. The first defendant represented to the plaintiff that by sale of the entire property within the financial year, he would sufferhuge capital gains tax and so...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari Industrial Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR674(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal in exercise of its judicial discretion.2. We would normally decline to interfere with the exercise of such judicial discretion by the Tribunal. We have not been shown any extraordinary circumstances of this case calling for our interference.3. The Tribunal had relied on the fact that in the decision rendered by this court concerning the same assessee, this court had observed that the asses-see had in the case before the court failed to utilise the opportunity which the Tribunal had given to place relevant materials to establish that the several activities carried on by the assessee constituted a single business. On the basis of material as was available on record, this court held against the assessee and found that the assessee's activity by carrying on plantation business and as also in running curing works constituted separate businesses. The decision of this court is reported in Waterfall Estates Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Productions (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR337(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal's findings that the business of running a hospital as also the business of running a studio by the same assessee was a single business on the ground that both the properties owned by the assessee were being let out with a view to earn an income, the hospital was earning its income by making the facilities available to patients and doctors and the studio by making the sets available to film producers on payment of hire charges--and therefore was essentially an integrated business, inasmuch as earning income from hiring of the properties owned by the assessee was the common object, and that the assessee had carried on both these businesses within the same compound that it had maintained common accounts, and that the management as also finance was common, have been questioned by the Revenue in this reference.2. It is contended by counsel for the Revenue that the running of a hospital is not in any way linked with the business of running of a studio and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)309; [1999]240ITR99(Mad)
ORDERSubject matter not in appealCatch Note:Since revisional jurisdiction is available for exercise in respect of matter which was not subject matter of appeal, therefore, original assessment order got merged with appellate order of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere under section 263.Held:The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC), has held that it is open to the Commissioner to exercise the powers of revision under section 263(1) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the original assessments had not been affected from (sic) and that revisional jurisdiction is available for exercise in respect of matter which was not the subject-matter of the appeal. Here it is not the case of the assessee that the matter sought to be revised was the subject-matter of the appeal. The first question therefore is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. [Para 2]Case Law Analysis:CIT v. Shri Arbud...
Tag this Judgment!Kamaladass Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1395
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years.2. The short point which arises for consideration by this Court is this. The charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant for having caused the death of the deceased, wife of the appellant, by pouring acid into her mouth. After trial, on taking into consideration of the materials, particularly the evidence of PW-2, who speaks about the dowry demand, the trial Court concluded that the appellant was liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and not under Section 302, I.P.C.3. Mr. Gove Ganesan, the counsel for the appellant, would submit that when the charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C. was not framed against the appellant, the conviction under the said section cannot be sustained and therefore, the matter could be remitted back to the trial Court for framing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »