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.
Thankam Alias Karthiyani Vs. C. Madhavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ634
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit for grant of letters of administration. The plaintiff is the only sister of the deceased P.N. Meenaskhi. The said Meenakshi executed a Will on 25.3.1985 while she was taking treatment in the Guest Hospital, Madras. The plaintiff alleged that the testatrix of the Will was deserted by her husband, who is the first defendant, from 1965 till she died in 1985 and only the plaintiff was looking after her. The deceased Meenakshi was a patient and she also had her uterus removed and was taking treatment at Madras under the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff only got the deceased admitted into the Guest Hospital. The deceased executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff as sole legatee. The deceased had no children and her husband also deserted her 20 years back. After the death of the said Meenakshi, the first defendant filed O.S. No. 350 of 1985 on the file of Vadakkanche...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. J. Abdul Khader Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)282
Mrs. A.. Subbulakshmy, J:Assessees are individuals who are co-owners of four properties. The first property is a residential property, The assessee disclosed the value of this property at Rs. 80,000, The Valuation Officer took the value of the building by capitalising the rent of Rs. 6,700 at 7.722 times and added reversionary value of the land to arrive at the value of Rs. 2,04,000. The second property is 'Band Line property'. The assessee showed the value at Rs. 70,000. The Valuation Officer took the value at Rs. 7 lakhs by separately valuing part of the land at Rs. 5,02,000, valuing the building at 7.722 times of the net rent of Rs. 4,996 and adding the reversionary value of the land. The third property is the 'Cash Bazar property', the value of which was disclosed as Rs. 2,75,000. The Valuation Officer determined at Rs. 53,800, by taking 7.36 times of the net rent of Rs. 51,076 for the structure and adding the reversionary value of the land. The last property is Liberty theatre who...
P. Perumal and 8 Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC236
ORDER1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (Cinemas-A) Department dated 7.1.1991 and quash the same. 2. As the facts in both the writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are graduates in Engineering who are included in the panel of Engineers approved by the Board of Engineers and maintained by the District Collectors under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules, 1966. The petitioners were involved in the construction of cinema theatres and they have constructed many theatres. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that 'Public Buildings' are defined under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 which did not include 'cinema theatres' as the class of buildings constituting cinema theatres were to be approved under the provisions of ...
R. Vasanthi Vs. Janaki Devi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC378
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition for grant of letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 4.7.1974 executed by one Lakshmi Bai.2. The main averments found in the petition/plaint are as follows:The testatrix Lakshmi Bai was residing at C4, R.K. Puram, Mambalam, Madras. On 4.7.1994, while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind had executed the last Will and testament duly attested by one D. Kanmani and A.T. Venkatesan. The Will was registered before the Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar and those two witnesses signed as identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar. Those two attestors are now dead. The testatrix Lakshmi Bai died on 22.6.1981. The petitioner is the step sister of Lakshmi Bai and out of love and affection for the petitioner the testatrix had executed the said Will bequeathing the properties in favour of the petitioner. Earlier, Lakshmi Bai during her life-time executed a Will on 19.10.1955 in favour of one Vasudevan and the same was cancelled on 6.1...
J. Pattabiraman Vs. K. Murugavel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ707
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 16872 of 1998 filed by one J. Pattabiraman and W.P. No. 1093 of 1999 filed by the Union of Territory of Pondicherry since both the writ petitions are directed against the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24.9.1998.2. By the instant impugned judgment, the tribunal has allowed the original application filed by one Murugavel, son of Krishnan and has quashed the selections made by the respondent Union of India, of as many as six candidates as the Welfare Inspectors (Adidravidar Welfare Department), Government of Pondicherry. The original petitioner before the tribunal has now joined as party-respondent here in both the writ petitions and we shall refer him as '1st respondent' hereinafter.3. The original application was filed mainly on the ground that the selection process for these posts, where the 1st respondent was an applicant, consisted to written examination and oral interview. It was pointed...
Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal (Died) and 4 Others Vs. Muthammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC275; (1999)IIMLJ666
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.447 of 1979 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli is the appellant in this appeal. Subsequent to the filing of appeal, she died and appellants 2 to, 4 have been brought on record as legal heirs of deceased appellant.2. Suit filed by plaintiff was to set aside the settlement deed dated 23.1.1975 and consequently to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff. The material averments in the plaint could be summarised thus: The property originally belonged to one Veerabagu Pillai, husband of plaintiff. He died on 16.11.1973. The couple had no issues. It was the case of plaintiff that plaint property was leased out to one Arumugham (PW4) and due to her old age, she was not in a position to administer and manage the property. It is her further case that she has no good vision and also illiterate. Except she knows how to sign, she has no education. It is said that lessee Arumugham committed default in paying rent and ther...
R. Muthuraman Vs. Sree Sakthi Tex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas320(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 316 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur, and aggrieved against the order passed in C. M. P. No. 4110 of 1998, dated March 24, 1999, the present revision is filed.2. The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows :The petitioner is the fourth accused in C. C. No. 316 of 1998. The respondent filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against seven persons. The petitioner filed an application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for discharge. The first accused issued a cheque for and on behalf of the seventh accused-company and the respondent has not filed any record to show that the petitioner is also one of the partners. Moreover, the petitioner had retired from the partnership even on July 51, 1995, and, thereafter, he had no connection whatsoever with the seventh accused. There is absolutely no connection of the revision...
Shenbagam Lorry Service, Represented by Its Partner M. Mathivanan Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ251
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Shenbagam Lorry Service, represented by its partner M. Mathivanan, the tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller, Mannargudi, is the revision petitioner.2. The eviction was sought for by the respondents herein on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for two months, viz., November and December, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 225 per month. There is also another ground that the tenant/petitioner committed the acts of waste which have reduced the value and utility of the building permanently.3. The said allegations were seriously opposed by the Revision petitioner. In the counter statement, the petitioner stated that they have been running the business of lorry agency for about 12 years, that immediately after taking the lease of the property, the petitioner has put up temporary thatched shed in front of the vacant space to park lorries, that the said shed has been there for about 12 years,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shanthi Chandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR371(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is 'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the value of shares as mentioned in the family settlement deed and not the cost to the previous owner, should be taken as the cost of acquisition of shares obtained by the assessee in the family settlement ?'2. The assessees while they were minors and unmarried, being the daughters of one Jagadish Chandran, received certain shares from Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., under the settlement effected by their father on March 2, 1977. In that settlement, the value of the shares mentioned was higher than the amount for which the said Jagadish Chandran had acquired the shares. Subsequently, in the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee sold those shares and derived a capital gain therefrom.3. The assessees contended before the assessing authority that...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Minor Shanthi Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)112
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us is 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 49 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the value of shares as mentioned in the family settlement deed and not the cost to the previous owner, should be taken as the cost of acquisition of share obtained by the assessee in the family settlement ?2. The assessee while they were minors and unmarried, being the daughters of one Jagadish Chandran, received certain shares from Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., under the settlement effected by their father on 2-3-1977. In that settlement the value of the shares mentioned was higher than the amount for which the said Jagadish Chandran had acquired the shares. Subsequently in the assessment year 1982-83, the assessees sold those shares and derived a capital gain therefrom.3. The assessees contended before the assessing authority that the cost of acquisition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »