Chennai Court February 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.
Mohammed Sheriff (Died) and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ658
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. The 1st appellant died and appellants 6 to 15 were brought on record as legal representatives. The 3rd appellant also died and appellants 16 to 23 were brought on record as legal representatives. Thereafter, appellant No. 9 also died and appellants 24 to 27 were brought on record as legal representatives.2. The case in brief is as follows:The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties absolutely belonged to them and also for permanent injunction. The family of plaintiffs owned large extent of properties including the schedule properties. They are mostly shop buildings built in Gramanatham, 'No 291/1 in Kallakurichi. Under a partition deed dated 14.9.41 between Sheik Ahamed and his minor sons in one hand and others, there was division of properties between the family of two cousins, viz., Masthan Sheriff and Sheik Ahamed. The suit properties were set out in 'C' schedule in the partition. They are t...
D. Thomas Vs. N. Thomas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ260
ORDERS. S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S.No. 141 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs in the suit and they filed the suit in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner and first defendant from starting or conducting liquor shop both Indian made foreign liquor and country made liquor in 'B' schedule property for proposed and anticipated reasons and apprehended injury and also to restrain other defendants from issuing licence for defendants 1 and 2 for starting liquor shop.3. It is the case of plaintiffs that they are residents of thickly populated area and if any liquor shop is conducted in 'B' schedule property, that will cause private and public nuisance to the people nearby. Brea...
Moderator, Church of South India, C.S.i. Centre and ors. Vs. J.S. King ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ277
ORDERS. S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 in O.S.No. 208 of 1999, on the file of III Additional City Civil Court, Madras, are the revision petitioners.2. The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the lower court in a suit filed by first respondent herein.3. The suit is one for declaration and injunction against the defendants, challenging the Resolution of the Synod Executive Committee, asking the Bishop to go on leave. The Bishop is the 2nd respondent in this revision and third defendant in the suit. It is the case of plaintiff that the Church of South India (for short, 'C.S.I.') is a union of various protestant churches in South India brought about in the year 1947. The C.S.I, as a Constitution by name Synod Constitution, to ensure decentralisation of administration, the Church is divided into separate districts each district known as Diocese. There are 21 dioceses in C.S.I. The present suit is i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orient Pharma (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)83
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.The admitted facts are that the assessee made a provision for Rs. 84,849 during the assessee's financial year which ended on 31st March, 1975, towards the liability for payment of gratuity to its employees. The amount was not disbursed to the employees towards the gratuity that was payable during that year. The assessee set up a gratuity fund by trust deed dt. 28th Dec., 1975, after the course of the financial year, and secured the approval of the CIT for the trust on 25th July, 1977. The Income Tax Officer allowed the deduction that was claimed by the assessee with regard to the said sum. The CIT on a suo motu revision held that such a deduction was impermissible having regard to s. 40A(7)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had been inserted by the Finance Act, 1975, with effect from 1st April, 1973. The Tribunal while disagreeing with the CIT's view has restored the order of the Income Tax Officer.2. Counsel for the Revenue rightly submitted that having regard...
Alagar @ Savugan S/O. S. Raman, Pattapuli Street, Keelavadakarai, Peri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC535; (1999)IIMLJ395
ORDER1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.3 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Periyakulam are the revision petitioners. The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Suit filed by the plaintiffs was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right over the pathway, demarcated as 'EFGH' in the plaint attached to the Plan, and also for a mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction caused in the pathway. 3. The suit was seriously contested by the defendants. As per the judgment dated 29.10.90, the lower Court dismissed the suit mainly on theground that the plaintiffs have not prayed for a declaratory relief. The trial Court was of the view that the suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable when the right over the property, of pathway is denied by the defendants. 4. Against the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs preferred A.S.No. 29 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. B...
C. Shanmugham Vs. N. Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas148(Mad); 1999(1)CTC542
S. S. Subramani, J.1. The petitioner is a third party, but who claims to be affected by interim order passed in the suit. Therefore, he filed an application for impleading himself before the lower court which was refused to be accepted by the lower court.2. These revisions are filed against the order of the lower court, refusing to receive the application. The facts in these cases are simple. The first respondent in these revisions filed O. S. No. 4803 of 1998 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the resolution passed by the defendant in the suit dated July 3, 1998, suspending him as a director is null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the functions of the plaintiff as a director and for consequential reliefs. In that suit, the first respondent moved I. A. No. 11207 of 1998 for injunction.3. The first defendant is Purasawakam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Limited, in which t...
R. Ramaraj Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas670(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari-fied mandamus, calling for records of first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 25304 of 1998-Ve.1, dated December 14, 1998, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to conduct the due elections to the three posts of directors already notified by the writ petitioner-management, and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner is a director of Periyanayakkanpalayam Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, and he was also elected as president of the bank. It is stated that in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, a board was constituted for the management. The board consisted of seven elected directors, and three directors co-opted, to give due representation to women and scheduled castes and schedule tribes. The Registrar has nominated a ma...
Kalpana Trading Co. Vs. Executive Officer, Town Panchayat and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad371
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:--The plaintiff is a contractor and the first defendant placed order with the plaintiff for supply of two drainage carts and four rubbish carts and the plaintiff has sent those carts under invoice dated 16-11-1972 to the defendants. As per the invoice the defendants had to pay a sum of Rs. 10,634.98. The plaintiff received letters from the Divisional Development Officer. Tiruchy stating that the amount has been sent to the plaintiff by means of cheques dated 30-11-1973, 14-3-1974 and 3-7-1974. The plaintiff received that letter on 9-1-1975. The first defendant then sent a letter dated 7-10-1976 stating that the second defendant has misappropriated that amount. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay that amount. The plaintiff came to know about the fraud only. On 7-10-1976 and so, the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff also claims interest at 9% and so, the plaintiff...
E.V. Perumalswamy and Padmavathi Educational Trust and anr. Vs. All In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad290
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. In both these writ petitions, the impugned order reads thus :-- W.P. No. 20623/98 : 'In pursuance of the Order of Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 21-9-98 in the W.A. No. 1188/98, I am to inform you that the proposal submitted by you to the Council for increase in intake for the year 1998-99 to EVP Engineering College, Chembarabakkam, Thiruvallur District-602103 has been carefully considered as per the regulations of the Council. Based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee Report, the Council has decided not to accord approval for increase in intake to existing courses during the academic session 1998-99 due to following reasons : (a) No Senior Faculty member at the level of Professor or Assistant Professor is appointed in entire faculty of 29. This is not in accordance with prescribed cadre ratio of 1:2:4 Professor, Assistant Professor and Lecturer. (b) Teaching staff appointed are fresh graduates without any teaching exper...
Rani Mohanraj and anr. Vs. P. Rajarathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad448
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 8 and 9 in C. S. 996 of 1998 on the tile of II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli are the revision petitioners. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Relevant facts which necessitated filing this revision may be summarised thus : One Mohanraj died on 23-11 -1997. Respondent herein is his brother. First petitioner is the widow of Mohanraj and second petitioner is first petitioner's father. First petitioner in her marriage with Mohanraj had given birth to a female child, whose name is Varsha Dhanashri. She was born on 23-2-1991.3. Respondent herein alleging that Mohanraj appointed him along with first petitioner as guardian of minor Varsha Dhanashri, within two weeks from the date of death of his brother Mohanraj, filed O.P. (Guardian Wards) to declare him as guardian of minor daughter and to have her custody and also properties which belong to Mohanraj but bequeathed under Will to his daughter. While filing Guar...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »