Chennai Court July 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.
Kammavar Sangam Through Its Secretary R. Krishnasamy Vs. Mani Janagara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC304; (1999)3MLJ507
ORDER1. Since caveat was entered, I heard the counsel for respondent also at the time of admission itself. 2. Parties herein will be referred according to their rank in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No. 366 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sathur to declare his title to the property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and to pay cost of the suit. It is stated in the plaint that property originally belonged to oneShanmuga Nadar, who is the grandfather of plaintiff. After his demise, suit property devolved on plaintiff in oral partition and eversince oral partition, he is is exclusive possession of the same for the past 40 years. Patta for the property stands in the name of plaintiff with effect from 7.11.1959. Plaintiff is also paying kist to the property from 20.5.1959. Patta pass book is also given in the name of plaintiff by Tahsildar, Sathur. 4. Re...
Maheswari Fireworks Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC272(Mad)
ORDERA.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. Admit. Mr. K. Ravirajapandian, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. Heard both sides. By the present petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, passed on April 29, 1999 dismissing the petitioner's O.P. No. 547 of 1999. The aforesaid O.P. has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner against the revised assessment order was time-barred. In support of his prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner has averred as under :'I submit that the order was served on the accountant of the petitioner on June 27, 1996 both since myself and the other partners are out of station at that time. The accountant who received the order did not bring it to my attention on my return from out station. He simply kept it in the sales tax file and did not inform me about the...
Anthony Chellappa Vs. Victoria Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ291
K. Natarajan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant.2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and for future profits. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Subbaiah Naidu who is P.W.2 in the suit. There were some mortgages in respect of the suit property and the defendant is the last mortgagee in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property on 17.3.1984 under a sale deed Ex. A - 5 subject to the mortgage. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the mortgaged properly executed by her vendor and deposited the mortgage amount in the trial court. The defendant filed a counter claim stating that he had made certain improvements and the total cost of the improvements is Rs. 6,100 which the plaintiff is liable to pay as she is beneficiary of the suit property as the purchaser from the mortgagor P.W.2. The plaintiff did not file any counter claim.3. The trial Judge raised the necessary issues and after con...
S. Vanitha Vs. E. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ511
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant who failed before the Authorities below is challenging the concurrent findings against her. She has been directed to be evicted by Rent Controller on the ground that she has committed wilful default in paying rent. Though she preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same was also not fruitful. Hence, the revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. Since the respondent has entered appearance by filing caveat, I heard him also at the time when the Revision came up for admission.3. Respondent's mother filed R.C.O.P.No. 1911 of 1994, on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the petitioner herein, on the ground that she has committed default in paying rent from November, 1991. Pending eviction proceedings she died, and the case is further prosecuted by her son, respondent herein.4. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a shop...
P.S.A. Rajaguru Vs. P.S.D. Nagamani Marthandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ327
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S.No. 4269 of 1996, on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner herein. The above transfer C.M.P. has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and transfer O.S.No. 4269 of 1996 to Sub Court, Kovilpatti, which is the competent court having territorial jurisdiction.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed O.S.No. 4269 of 1996, on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to declare that the suit partnership business run under the name and style of Messrs Naryanaswami Talkies at Kovilpatti Town, V.O.C. District, stands dissolved with effect from 30.11.1995, or in the alternative, to fix a date of dissolution of the suit partnership firm; to direct the defendants in the suit to render true and proper accounts relating to all the affairs and business of the firm including the goodwill from 24.4.1985 as on 29.2.1995 and ascertain 5% of plaintiffs share each, in t...
V. Veeraraghavan Vs. State Bank of India, Mettupalayam Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ702
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 437 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the lower court in I.A. No. 947 of 1998 filed by the respondent herein.2. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,62,337.50 with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment and also for the costs of the suit. The defendant/respondent herein is a nationalised bank. Even though the respondent entered appearance in the suit, did not file written statement and finally ex parte decree was passed on 14.10.1996. By the time the decree was passed, the amount swelled to nearly Rs. 7,40,000 apart from the costs of the suit. The petitioner herein filed an execution application on the basis of the ex parte decree. The Bank received notice in E.P. in January, 1998 and on their failure to make any representation, an order of attachment was ordered on 24.3.19...
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Represented by Its Secretary Vs. S.J. Syed Basha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ534
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 672 of 1976, on the file of Sub Court, Salem, is the appellant. Appellant is Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary.2. Suit filed by appellant was one to declare that the suit property is a wakf property and to recover possession of the property from defendants and for costs of the suit.3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaint properties are wakf properties under grant endowed for the maintenance and upkeep of Thakkia Makkam and Durga called Shaker Sha Makkam. It is averred that the great Saint Shakar Sha and his disciples have been buried there. Fakir charities and service to the said Durga are being carried out. The said Saint Shaker Sha was a member of Banuva Fakir Jama attached to the Durga of Baba Fakiruddin Avulia of Penukonda. From time immemorial, the income from the aforesaid properties was utilised to meet the expenses of watching the Durga, lighting it and repairing the Durga and Makkam. There is a mosque in the Mak...
H.T.L. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT30(Mad)
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. Petitioners are accused in CC No. 84 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence) at Egmore, Chennai. They seek to quash the proceedings in the above calendar case.2. The proceedings against the petitioners came to be initiated by way of a private complaint at the instance of the respondent in this petition for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act on the allegation that the petitioners have wilfully evaded payment of differential Central Excise duty for the period from 14-10-1991 to 6-2-1992 on the products manufactured by them. It is the admitted case of both parties that the Tribunal which went into the question by order, dated 17-5-1996 held that part of the matter can be adjudicated de novo and that the petitioners did not wilfully evade the payment of Central Excise duty on the question of wage arrears. It further held that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioners and ther...
Prasath Vs. Subramania Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC101; 2001ACJ1562
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Prasath, the injured-claimant, is the appellant herein.2. Since the injured sustained injuries due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to respondent No. 2, he filed a claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs. 1,40,152.3. The Tribunal, after enquiry, holding that both the driver of the bus as well as the injured were negligent and responsible for the accident, awarded Rs. 25,000 payable to the appellant.4. The main ground of attack made on the judgment impugned is that in the absence of any oral evidence to attribute contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-injured, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the appellant also was negligent and that the quantum of award on the basis of the contributory negligence is too meagre. This submission is resisted by the counsel for respondents stating that Tribunal's finding is correct.5. In the light of the rival contentions, let us examine the facts and material circumstances of the...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muniammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC148
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appealls directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vellore, in M.C.fO.P. 362 of 1983. The second respondent in the Claim Petition is the appellant in the above appeal.2. According to the claimant, the wife of the deceased Ramaswamy, the accident occurred on 28.7.1982 at 9.30 a.m. at Pudupatti village on the highway road between Arcot and Cheyyar. The deceased was travelling in the said bus. The accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus without conforming to the traffic regulations. As a result of the accident the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was doing vegetable business and he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. He was only the protector of the claimant. A total sum of Rs. 60,000/- was claimed by the claimant.3. In the counter filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company, the manner of the accident as stated in the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »