Chennai Court April 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.
Rukmani Kannan Vidyalaya Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: [2001]249ITR111(Mad)
R. Jayasimha, J. 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the questions proposed do require consideration by this court. 2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income of the trust from Kindergarten section is not entitled to exemption as running of a Kindergarten schools is not within the ambit of the trust's objects 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the entire income of the trust has riot been utilised for education activities and as such, the income from Kindergarten school and the ladies hostel is not exempt 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income from the ladies hostel as it is not entitled for exemption as it is not a charitable object and involves an activity for profit ...
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sakunthala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1322
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Challenging the award of Rs. 1,26,000 as against the total claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000, the present appeal has been filed by the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation on the ground of quantum.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation would submit that the multiplier of 15 is on the higher side and that though there is documentary evidence to show that the deceased was earning about Rs. 700 per month, the Tribunal found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000 even without any documentary evidence for the balance of Rs. 300.3. Heard the counsel for the respondents.4. This is a case where the accident took place due to collision of two vehicles. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed before it, concluded that the drivers of both the vehicles had conjoint and composite negligence and as such, both are equally liable to pay the compensation.5. Regarding the negligence or the percentage of negligence...
Siva and Co., Represented by Partners and ors. Vs. P.V. Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ529
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The learned councel for the applicants argued that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is not applicable to an instrument which is not at all stamped and it contemplates cases of partly stamped only.2. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows:Instrument not duly stamped in admissible in evidence etc.: No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by such person or by any public officer; unless such instrument is duly stamped.The first part of Section 35 of the Stamp Act states that no instrument is admissible in evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped. A document which is not stamped will also come under the definition of 'not duly stamped'. It cannot be construed to mean that duly stamped means documents which have been partly stamped. When we come to the proviso (a) of Sect...
N. Duraisamy Vs. R. Asokan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ190
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Duraisamy the petitioner/landlord challenging the judgment and decree in M.A. No. 38 of 1993 dated 16.2.1995 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in setting aside the fair order and decretal order in H.R.C.O.P No. 108 of 1992 dated 30.6.1993 on the file of the Rent Controller. Pondicherry, has preferred this revision.2. The petitioner is the landlord. The respondent is the tenant. The respondent took the premises on lease from the petitioner on 21.9.1990 for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 The respondent paid an advance of Rs. 1500 to the petitioner. He was paying the rents upto May, 1992, Thereafter, he defaulted in making the payment of rent. On 17.8.1992, the petitioner issued a notice demanding the arrears of rent and amenity charges. Despite receipt of notice, the respondent did not choose to reply. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition for eviction.3. The case of the respondent is that upto M...
TuticorIn Port Trust Democratic Staff Union, Rep. by Its Secretary, Tu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC266
ORDER1. Both the counsel have agreed to decide the main writ petition itself. 2. The petitioner-union has to filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to hold secret ballot in the 2nd respondent establishment among class III and class IV employees to ascertain the representative character of the unions so as to facilitate their nominees to be made as trustees of the 2nd respondent-trust and also for negotiating with the 2nd respondent-trust on all matter pertaining to the workman of Port Trust as a negotiating agent. 3. The petitioner-union is registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is not in dispute the Ministry of Surface Transport evolved a scheme which isapplicable to all Major Port Trusts and all Dock Labour Boards for 'check off' system. The said scheme was framed for the purpose of appointment of Labours Trustees on the boards of Major Port Trusts, appointment of members representing labour on the Dock Labour Boards, ap...
Simon and Another Vs. Thankammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC705
ORDER1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order allowing the application for amendment of the written statement by the learned District Munsif, Eraniel in I.A.No. 133 of 1997 in O.S.No. 2 of 1997 on his file. The amendment sought for is for adding the pleading that the compromise effected in A.S.No. 137 of 1973 is fraudulent and collusive. The main objection raised by the revision petitioner before the lower court was that in the same proceedings, at an earlier point of time, the respondents had asked forpermission to file an additional written statement to the same effect and it wasrejected.2. The learned District Munsif has taken pains to point out the distinction between the additional written statement and the amendment of written statement. While prior leave of the court is necessary for Tiling an additional written statement, no such leave is necessary for filing an amendment petition and held that the amendment has to be allowed as no injustice is caused to ...
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.K. Syed Yacoob
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC67; 2001ACJ1778
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation challenging the award of Rs. 50,000 in M.C.O.P. No. 209 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, South Arcot District (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) has filed this appeal on the ground of negligence and of the quantum.2. Syed Yacoob, the respondent herein, being the owner of the van for the damage caused to it due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the appellant Corporation claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The Tribunal, after recording evidence concluded that the van got damaged due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation and that the respondent/claimant was entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs. 42,000 towards the damage caused to the van and Rs. 8,000 towards the loss of income for the period when the van was kept idle under repairs.3. While attacking this order, Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant sub...
A.K. Raju Moopan Vs. Packiam Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ713
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 270 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy dated 8th April, 1986 made in A.S. No. 268 of 1984 in reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 270 of 1982, dated 24.2.1984.2. For convenience the parties to this second appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.3. At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:Whether Ex.A-1 is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with an option to re-purchase?4. The plaintiff instituted the suit for redemption of the suit property and directing the defendant to execute a reconveyance on receipt of sum of Rs. 999.20. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his ...
Subramaniya Moopanar (Died) and ors. Vs. R. Sumathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ651
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 526 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court have preferred this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur dated 20.4.1987 made in A.S.No. 13 of 1985 in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur dated 31.1.1984 made in O.S.No. 526 of 1978. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.2. Heard Mr. K. Sarvabhauman, senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.V. Jayaram, senior counsel appearing for the contesting first respondent.3. Mr. K. Sarvabhauman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted detailed arguments while challenging the findings recorded by the first appellate court and took the court through the evidence both oral and documentary and contend...
M.M. Rafi Vs. the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Madras-8 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC434
ORDER1. This is a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in Notice No. 15 of 1990 dated 3.3.1990 and quash the same. In this writ petition the petitioner had challenged the demolition notice issued by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, the first respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has constructed a building at No.6, Sparking Sands Avenue, Sholinganallur Village, within the jurisdiction of the third respondent.2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner by Smt. Prabha Sridevan that on 17.12.1982 the petitioner has applied for permission under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act to the Commissioner of Panchayat Union. Chitlapakkam, who was having jurisdiction in respect of Sholinganallur Village for approval of the plan and permission relating to the construction of the building in a portion of 1 acre of the petitioner's plot No. 69 in Survey No. 1/1-C/2 and 1/1Cp/3. The respondents have not repli...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »