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.
Talavadi Rock and Minerals Products Ltd. Vs. Alwarpet Finance and Fund ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas566(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner who is one of the accused in C. C. No. 3141 of 1996 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 722 of 1999 dated May 19, 1999. 2. The case in brief is as follows : The respondent filed a complaint against the company as well as managing director as accused Nos. 1 and 2. The cheque was signed by the second accused on October 23, 1995, and it was presented on April 10, 1996, and the same was returned 'dishonoured'. The complainant issued a notice and even after the expiry of 15 days, the amount was not paid and, hence the complaint was laid. 3. The petitioner met with an accident on August 6, 1995, and he was hospitalised. He was not in a position to move out and was confined to bed. He had also resigned from the first accused-company even on November 23, 1995. The first accused-company has a whole-time director, viz., Aravind Chung, who was appointed in 199...
S. Sitaraman Vs. Special Tahsildar Adi Dravida Welfare, Tindivanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad248; 1999(2)CTC761
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the 5-A proceedings issued by the respondent dated 15.9.1991 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him he owns lands in R.S.No. 24678 in Kiliyanur village. Varur Taluk, South Arcot District. A notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act).. was published in the gazette on 3.7.1991 stating that 0.12.0 hectares was required for a public purpose to wit for the provision of burial ground for the Adi Dravida of Kiliyanur village, Varur Taluk, South Arcot District. The present burial ground for the Adi Dravidas lies south of the odai and west of the Tindivanam Pondicherry Road. The Adi Dravidas have been using this burial ground situated in poramboke lands for generations. The existing burial ground is quite sufficient for burying dead from the Adi Dravida Colony. When notice under Rule 3-A of the Rules served on him he promptly send his objecti...
Raman Vs. Rahmathunnisa and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC88; (1999)3MLJ381
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 34 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai is the revision petitioner.2. Suit filed by petitioner is one for declaration' of his title and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession.3. At the time of when the suit was instituted, there was only three defendants. First defendant already filed his written statement on 22.9.1994. Thereafter, first defendant sold the property and the purchaser was impleaded as additional 4th defendant as per order in I.A. No.541 of 1996 dated 9.9.1997.4. In the written statement filed by first defendant, he has not taken any objection regarding court-fee payable on the plaint. On the basis of purchase and after his impleadment, 4th defendant filed written statement, where he took objection regarding valuation of suit. Thereafter, he filed I.A. No.360 of 1997 to test the value of the suit property by a senior bailiff and basing his value with reference to ...
Majestice Leatherware, Rep. by Its Proprietor S.M. Mahboob Basha, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC199; (1999)3MLJ398
ORDER1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2695 of 1993 on the file XII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. The landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in paying the rent of Rs.1,500 per month from 1.11.1992 to 30.9.1993. According to landlord, the default is wilful default and therefore liable to be evicted. He also averred that an earlier application was filed for eviction on the ground, of payment of rent from 1.7.1992 to 31.10.1992 and the same is also pending consideration by court.3. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, he admitted the rate of rent and he denied the allegation that he neglected to pay the rent from 1.11.1992 to 30.9.1993. According to him, there are no arrears and he has not committed any default in payment of rent.4. The Rent Controller clubbed both the Rent Control Original Petitions viz, R.C.O.R.Nos. 3083 of 1992 and 2695 of 1993 and passed a common order. Evidence consists o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muthulakshmi Timber Depot
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR481(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. For the assessment year 1979-80 concerningMuthulakshmi Timber Depot, the assessee, the following three questionshave been referred, the first two at the instance of the Revenue and thethird at the instance of the assessee. :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of, the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on April 24, 1982, was barred by limitation and, therefore, it had got to be annulled ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was correct in law in annulling the assessment and notsetting aside the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on April 24,1982, and in not directing the Income-tax Officer to follow the procedurelaid down in Section 144B ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated April 24, 1982, passed by the Income-tax Officer was not in violation of the principles of n...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1234Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award dated November 30, 1992 made in I.D. No. 13 of 1988 on the file of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal, and to quash the same.2. The above writ petition relates to the payment of bonus for the accounting year 1984 by the petitioner-Management to the 2nd respondent employees' Union, working under the petitioner- Management, as per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bonus Act').3. Section 2(1) of the Bonus Act defines the term 'accounting year'; Section 2(13) defines the term 'employee' with reference to ceiling on wages to claim bonus; Section 4 provides for computation of gross profit; Section 5 provides for computation of available surplus; Section 6 prescribes the sums deductible from gross profit and Section 7 provides for the calculation of direct tax payable by the employer.4. Section 10 of the Bonus Act prescribes t...
Gurusamy Gounder Vs. Muthusamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ379
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 566 of 1993 on the file of Additional District Munsif's Court, Bhavani is the revision petitioner herein.2. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering with the existing cart track 'A, B, C, D, E, F' or altering the existing 'A, B, C, D, E, F' track thereby causing dominition of the extent in the blue marked portion in the plaint plan and directing defendants to pay the costs of the suit and afford such other necessary orders as the court may deem fit and proper.3. In the body of the plaint, plaintiff has stated that there is a cart track 'ABCDERF' in the property as marked in the rough plan filed along with the plaint, which is the access to his property. In para. 4 of the plaint it is further stated that defendants are also entitled as of right to use the 'ABCDERF' cart track by virtue of the recitals in the partition deed No. 531 of 1974.4. Reason for filing the suit wa...
Printing Guru and Guru Matches, Represented by Its Partner, Sakthivel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ422
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the judgment-debtor against the order in E.P. No. 35 of 1999 in O.S. No. 51 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivakasi.2. Personal exeuction was ordered against the petitioner in execution of decree against the firm. The same is challenged in this revision on various grounds.3. When the matter came up for admission, learned Judge of this Court directed petitioner to deposit half of the amount within four weeks. But, that order has not been complied with and the interim order was vacated. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that decree cannot be executed as against petitioner personally since provisions of Order 21, Rule 50 had not been complied with. Argument of learned Counsel is that he has not been served individually and he has failed to appear. I do not find any merits in this submission.4. Provisions regarding suit by or against the firm is provided under Order 30 of Code of Civil Procedure. Order 3...
V.M. Subramani and ors. Vs. Arulmugu Bhavanarayanasamy Temple Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ386
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revisions are filed by defendant in the respective suits. Four suits were filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein for evicting the Defendant in the suit with arrears of rent.2. It is alleged in the plaint that the property belonged to Aruimigu Bhavanarayanasami temple and the same was let out to defendants under rental arrangements. It is further stated that they are irregular in paying the rent. Notice was issued to defendants to settle the arrears and also to vacate the premises. The same was not complied with, which necessitated filing of the suits.3. Revisions petitioners filed written statement denying the title of plaintiffs and alleged that some third parties are the real owners and they are paying rent to them.4. After filing written statement, defendants filed an interim application before the court below to implead the third parties as additional parties to the suits. Those applications were dismissed by the court below which is challenged in th...
Ramasamy Gounder Vs. Suguna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ441
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant in O.S.No. 1222 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthangarai, is the revision petitioner herein and the matter arises in execution.2. The respondent herein obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner and others not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of a cart track, It is alleged in the E.P., after decree has become final, the petitioner herein has given trouble to the respondents by interfering with the enjoyment of the cart track by placing fence and causing obstructions. It is further alleged that the respondents even moved the police stations to remove the obstruction which would not yield any result, Hence, they come to this Court to implement the decree under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Counter was filed by the petitioner denying the existence of cart track as explained in the plaint, there cannot be any obstruction as alleged. He also stated that he has not violated any...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »