Chennai Court October 1999 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.
K. Kathalingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC636; (2000)1MLJ247
ORDER1. The petitioner claims that his father purchased the lands bearing Survey No. 409/1 and 409/2 in Thuvarankurichi village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. During his life time, in the year 1993 on the basis of oral partition, the petitioner was allotted the said lands. According to him, from 1993, he has been paying the kist and enjoying the said properties. Since the respondents 2 to 4 have decided to treat these lands as if they belong to the Government, and were taking steps to take possession of the lands by force, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 41 of 1999 before the Sub-Court,Pattukottai in March 1999. Though the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 104 of 1999 seeking for an order of injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his peaceful possession. Notice was ordered and the said petition is pending consideration by the Civil Court. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, on 16.6.1999, the 4th respondent along with the Vill...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Selvambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC259
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Erode in M.C.O.P. No. 146 of 1988. The National Insurance Company Limited, the third respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company is as regards the maximum liability for which the Insurance Company would be liable per passenger.3. In this case, the deceased was a non-fare paying passenger. He was not employed either by the owner of the lorry or by the owner of the goods. The stand of the Insurance Company is that a perusal of the policy would disclose that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company to a non-fare paying passenger will be Rs. 10,000/- and the maximum limit for anyone accident would be Rs. 50,000/-. In dealing with this objection, the Tribunal had held that in the instant case, it was only one accident and the n...
Godavari Match Industries, Mamasapuram by Its Proprietor and 4 Others ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ556
ORDER1. The defendants in O.S.No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur and the plaintiff therein are the appellant and the respondent respectively in this appeal before this Court. In this judgment the parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The said suit was filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling match boxes containing the infringing trade marks of the plaintiff; for accounts; damages estimated in the plaint at Rs.500 or such other sum as may be found due by the court and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to produce into court the offending marks and labels including blocks and dyes. On contest the suit was decreed restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs trade mark for accounts and surrender of the offending marks, labels, blocks and dyes. It is the correctness of the said judgment that is being questioned in this appeal bef...
State Bank of India Vs. A.K. Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad303
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. State Bank of India, Madras-1, the defendant/appellant, after having lost in both the Courts below, has filed this second appeal aginst the decree and judgment dated 31-7-1987 made in A. S. No. 161 of 1986 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras confirming the Judgment and decree made in OS. No. 6637 of 1979 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. M/s. A.K. Exports, the respondent herein, filed the suit before the trial Court for recovery of Rs. 12,360.60 being the value of the goods, which was not recovered by the defendant from the person concerned while handing over the goods.3. The defendant/appellant contested the said suit by stating that their Bank was not responsible for the collection of the said amount and the other Bank-California Bank, situate in America, being the substituted agent, to whom the documents and consignments were sent, alone was responsible for the failure to collect the money bef...
Bheeman K.K. Vs. High Forest Estates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1062Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The applicant herein, second respondent in W.M.P. No. 4714 of 1995 and petitioner in W.M.P. No. 20744 of 1998 in WP No. 2927 of 1995 has filed the above contempt application to punish the respondent for not complying with the order, dated March 1, 1999 in W.M.P. No. 20745 of 1998 in W.P. No. 2927 of 1995 of this Court.2. After going through the order of this Court, dated March 11, 1999, in the said applications, more particularly, in view of Clause 6, this Court expressed its doubt regarding maintainability of the present contempt application. Since in the very same order it was made clear that failing compliance of any one of the conditions referred to therein, the stay order shall stand vacated automatically, this Court directed the learned counsel for the applicant to serve a copy of the contempt application, affidavit and other connected papers on the counsel for the management. As directed the respondent-management is represented by a counsel and also filed an ...
V.S. Hamid Sultan, Rep. by His Power Agent Mohamed Farooq Vs. Abdul La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC137; (2000)1MLJ364
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in R.C.A.No. 19 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, in R.C.O.P.No. 14 of 1992. The landlord/petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is the revision petitioner. 2. In the petition filed by the landlord, it is contend that the respondent is the tenant in the residential building. The tenancy was the first of every English calendar month and the same was oral. The monthly rent was only Rs. 80 and the respondent was not regular in payment of rent and he was a chronic defaulter. He has also not paid rent from June, 1989 and had committed wilful default inspite of repeated demands. The conduct of the respondent shows supine indifference and callousness. When the petitioner pressed the respondent to pay the arrears of rent, he had issued a lawyer's notice on 6.1.1992 claiming as though there was only arrears of rent for two months. But the petitioner gave a reply a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Textile Corporation (Tamilnadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR487(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The undertaking belonging to Cambodia Mills was taken over by the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 ('the Act'). Notwithstanding' the transfer of the mill to the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, the company-Cambodia Mills as a legal entity did not cease to exist. That Act in Section 2(h) defines 'owner'. The definition 'sick textile undertaking' is found in Section 2(j). Reading the two together, it is clear that the ''owner' is distinct from the 'sick textile undertaking'. What the Act provided for is only the acquisition of the sick textile undertaking. The owner of the undertaking was to be paid compensation, the amount of which is set out in the Schedule to the Act. Cambodia Mills is mentioned in the Schedule at serial No. 23. The amount payable to it as compensation is Rs. 64,40,000. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that the owner of the undertak...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ruti Machinery Works Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR442(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is a composite one covering the issue raised by the assessee regarding royalty and the issue of technical know-haw raised by the Revenue. The assessment years involved are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1979-80 in so far as the technical know-how is concerned, and in respect of royalty payment, the assessment years are 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. The composite question referred to us as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the technical know-how and the royalty payable under the collaboration agreement dated April 9, 1974, between the assessee and Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works has accrued or deemed to have been accrued in India within the meaning of Section 9 so as to be exigible to income-tax.3. The assessee is a company incorporated in Switzerland. It manufactures weaving machines and is said to be 130 years old. It entered into a collaboration agreement with Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Limited. The collaboration was in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR459(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is engaged in the mining of lignite. For more efficient conduct of its business, it acquired steam generating plants with auxiliaries for the purchase of which equipment, it entered into an agreement on May 1, 1981, with a Hungarian company, Transelectro. The agreement was entered into after the assessee had invited tenders for the supply of the equipment and the assessee had found the tenders submitted by Transelectro to be the most satisfactory.2. The contract with Transelectro described the supplier as the principal supplier/contractor. It contemplated the performance of part of the services required to be performed under the contract by two other companies. Nevertheless, the responsibility for the work done by them was also to be taken by the principal contractor.3. The scope of the work, as set out in the contract reads as under : '1.0 Scope of work :1.1 In connection with the manufacture, supply, erection, and commissioning of three (3) steam...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kikabi's Educational Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR697(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We find no substance in these references. The Tribunal has held that there was no infringement of the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) read with Section 13(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the materials placed before it. No error in the consideration of materials has been brought to our notice. The Tribunal has held that there was no diversion of the trust's fund by the trustees for the benefit of any person mentioned in Section 13(2) of the Act.2. The assessee is admittedly an educational trust. The fact that the trustees happen to be partners of firms and that they had assigned to the trust irrevocably their share income to the trust would not result in any diversion of fund by the trust to the trustees. On the other hand, the income otherwise receivable by the trustees had the assignment not been effected, after the assignment is received by the trust. There is no question of diversion of the trust's funds for the benefit of the trustee. The Trib...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »