Chennai Court November 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.
S. Gurusamy Nadar (Died) and 3 Others Vs. Andal Ammal (Died) and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC492
ORDER1. The C.R.P. has been filed by the tenants against the concurrent decision of the Rent Controler and the Appellate Authority ordering their eviction. The grounds on which the eviction was sought were wilful default inthe payment of rent and un-authorised subletting. Both the authorities below held that the revision petitioners had committed wilful default. However, as regards subletting they rejected the case of the owner. 2. One Andalammal who was the owner of the property filed the eviction petition on the following allegations: The first revision petitioner became a tenant under her agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.120, that he paid an advance of Rs.7,750, that the arrangement was that he should pay Rs.60 and the balance Rs.60 was to be adjusted in the advance paid. However he committed default in the payment of Rs.60 from 1.5.1977 till 31.10.1980 for a period of 42 months, that there were arrears in a sum of Rs.2,520, that the default was wilful and that he was liable to ...
S.G. Ramalakshmi Vs. Nellai Murasu Private Ltd, Rep. by Its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC630; (2000)1MLJ341
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 99 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Tirunelveli is the appellant. 2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for declaration and recovery of possession on the following allegations: Scheduled property belonged to late Kalyansundaram Pillai who executed a settlement deed on 12.5.1969 as evidenced by Ex.A1. Under that deed, he bequeathed his life estate in favour of his wife and vested reminder with his two daughters i.e., plaintiff and her sister. It is her further case that as per settlement deed, mother of plaintiff got life estate. Father of second defendant was tenant under Kalyanasundaram Pillai. On his demise, second defendant became the tenant. Out of the entire property, plaintiff's sister Thangammal was entitled to undivided half share and the remaining half share belong to plaintiff. Thangammal sold her right by registered sale deed dated 13.8.1975 as per Ex.B4. It is further alleged that plaintiff never sold her share in the property but she came t...
Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ660; [2002]126STC32(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated October 22, 1999, rejecting its appeals for non-payment of the 25 per cent of the difference of tax assessed by the assessing authority, and the tax admitted by the petitioner-Corporation Ltd.2. In these cases, we are concerned with the assessment orders for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, which have been passed on August 31, 1999 by the first respondent, after considering the petitioner's objection. Aggrieved by the said assessment orders, the petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent. The second respondent returned the papers mentioning that unless the petitioner pays the 25 per cent of the difference of tax assessed by the assessing authority, the Appeals could not be entertained. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions, challenging the said return of papers by the second respondent/appellate authority.3. Prior to the amendment under ...
Kishore J. Chawla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC594; 2000(117)ELT4(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petitions, the first one for issue of a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from harassing the petitioners or using third degree methods against the petitioner and to restrict the enquiry between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., and the other writ petition, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner's Advocate to be present at the time of interrogation.2. The petitioner is a partner in M/s. J. Sons, engaging in the business of software and exports. According to the petitioner, the said firm imports educational video cassettes and they are sub-titled and dubbed or made into a multi-media presentation on CD Roms made out by clippings from these video cassettes and, thereafter, exported to several countries.3. On 28-1-1999 the said firm received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIB, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai requesting it to produce evidence from t...
Pillaiyar Vs. Ganesan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC279
ORDER1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilluputhur, in I.A.No.862 of 1998 in O.S.No.213 of 1998 appointing an advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down the physical features and file a report along with a plan.2. The suit has been for a declaration that the pathway covered by the letter CDEFGHI as shown in the plaint plan belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and another K. Rajamani who is the third defendant in the suit, from interfering with petitioner's/plaintiff's possession and enjoyment for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent herein to close the door way fixed on the parapet wall 'I' for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant in the suit to close the door way kept by him on the parapet wall 'G' and for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any construction in the area con...
K. Muthuvelappa Gounder and Sons Vs. Supdt. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT311(Mad)
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioner wants this Court to decide that the petitioner's product, stated to be cut piece tobacco, is an unmanufactured product and therefore, the respondents are not competent in law to impose duty under Central Excise tariff, as in Entry No. 2401.00 there is no duty imposed for the unmanufactured tobacco.2. However, the respondents in the counter would state that the said contention cannot be said to be fully correct.3. In the light of the rival contentions, I am of the view that this question has to be decided only by the department concerned.4. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner filed a classification list for approval for the year 1992-93, wherein they claim that the impugned goods, namely, a branded chewing tobacco under heading No. 2401.00 attracting Nil rate of duty.5. On the basis of the said claim, the show cause notices have been issued to the petitioner. Without waiting for the process of the sai...
Ramesh and Another Vs. Kamathchi Ammal and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC749; 2002ACJ482; 2000(1)CTC213
ORDER1. The owner and the driver of a tractor with a trailer are the appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one Kullagonder, who died in an accident involving the tractor and trailer belonging to the first appellant and driven by the Second Appellant.2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,000 as against a claim for Rs.1 lakh. It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver resulting in the deceased falling down from the vehicle and the front portion of the tractor running over him.3. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that there are several discrepancies relating to how the accident happened and the tribunal has not considered these discrepancies. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that one of the heirs of the d...
S. Maruthai and Another Vs. Gokuldoss Dharam Doss and Four Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC724
ORDER1. The earlier appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 68 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. The later appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 189 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. O.S.No. 189 of 1991 was originally pending as O.S.No. 3002 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and on being transferred it came to be taken on the file by the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore and renumbered as referred to above. In this judgment the substantive parties to the appeals would hereinafter be referred to as 'vendors' and 'buyer'. The buyer is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 189 of 1991. It is a suit for specific performance. The vendors, numbering five, are the defendants in that suit. That suit was dismissed on merits. The vendors are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 68 of 1987. The buyer is the first defendant in that suit and his tenant is the second defendant in that suit. That was a suit laid by the vendors for d...
Mayavaram Financial Chit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Chit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas366(Mad)
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. The petitioner-chit Corporation is carrying on business in chits having its registered office at Mayiladuthurai, and branch offices at so many places including at Thanjavur. At the instance of the subscribers for change of place of auction from Mayiladuthurai to the places where they are residing or carry on business, the agreement already entered into as contemplated under Section 6 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, was altered with the consent in writing of the foreman and the subscribers to the chit with respect to chit No. 58 of 1997 after making such alteration in the chit agreement. The petitioner, with a view to comply with rule 14 of the Chit Funds Rules, sent an application to register the said alteration, to the respondent Deputy Registrar. The respondent has sought for opinion from the Registrar in his proceedings dated June 9,1997. The District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, in the proceedings dated November 4, 1997, informing the respondent Deputy Registrar t...
Narayanan C.T. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ703Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling or the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent, dated March 30, 1995, and the impugned order of the third respondent, dated December 30, 1994, and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is brieflystated hereunder:According to him he was appointed as a clerk on February 20, 1961 and was promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale I on October 1, 1977 in the first respondent-bank. The Cathedral Currency Chest is one of the money currency chests set up a few years ago mainly to off-load the huge volume of currency work from Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to different public sector banks. He was issued with chargesheet on August 24, 1994 alleging mat there was a cash shortage of Rs. 30,000 on July 30, 1993 in the bins in vault in the currency chest of Cathedral Branch, that the cash was previously verified and found correct by the RBI Inspectors on October 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »