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.
Balamani Vs. Kailasam Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ443
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 406 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arupukottai is the revision petitioner Suit filed by him was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff alleged that on 25.5.1947, there was a panchayat and a partition was effected and the same was recorded in a note book and all the sharers have also affixed their signature in that document. The plaintiff properties were allotted to one of the sharers Karuppiah Konar and on his death, the property devolved on his widow Vellammal and the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the Vellammal also died and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. The defendants are now interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property wherein the plaintiff has put up a construction. The suit was therefore, filed for declaration and consequential reliefs.2. The defendant has filed a written statement.3. After suggesting issues, parties went on trial when P.W.1 wa...
Muthuswamy and anr. Vs. Periasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC501
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The claimants are the appellants herein.2. According to the claimants, on 19.8.1888 when the wife of the first claimant was travelling in the bus belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the but, the bus dashed against bridge, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and she was taken to hospital wherein she died later. Hence, the claimants filed an application seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.3. The Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to bursting of tyre and as such, the driver of the bus could not be held to be negligent. But however, under the head of 'no fault liability', the Tribunal found that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.4. This award is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal.5. Heard the Counsel for the appellants and the second respondent.6. Admittedly, the owner of the vehicle or the dri...
H.H. Rijhwani Vs. N. Venkat Ramani and Either Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC13a; (1999)3MLJ750
ORDER1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for either side in both the revision petitions, the revision petitions are taken up today for final disposal and they are disposed of.2. Heard Mr.K. Alagirisami senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revision petitions, Mr.M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent in C.R.P.No. 1077 of 1999, Mr.K.V. Venkatapathi, Advocate General appearing for the 1st respondent in C.R.P.No. 1078 of 1999 and Mr.M.S. Ramesh appearing for the 3rd respondent the Returning Officer. Service of notice on other respondents is not complete. However, it is represented jointly that the revision itself could be disposed of, as it arises out of an interlocutory order passed pending the suit.3. C.R.P.No. 1077 of 1999 has been preferred against the order dated 23.3.1999 made in I.A.No. 411 of 1999 in O.S.No. 493 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. In the said suit an injunction applic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR187(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a bank, which has its registered office within the jurisdiction of this court, and has branches outside India including Ceylon and Singapore. It claimed the benefit of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by way of weighted deduction for the expenditure incurred by it on its branches at Ceylon and Singapore for the assessment year 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction on the expenditure of Rs. 1,04,62,703 spent by it, but only on Rs. 41,68,374 as in his view the difference represented the gross interest paid by the assessee to its customers, who had made deposits with the bank, and such gross interest could not be treated as expenditure, as in his view, it is only the amount of expenditure determined after setting off the interest received by the bank from its customers against the interest paid by it, that was relevant for the purposes of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. That view of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR314(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a bank, which has its registered office within the jurisdiction of this court, and has branches outside India including one at Bangkok. It claimed the benefit of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by way of weighted deduction for the expenditure incurred by it on its branch at Bangkok for the assessment year 1980-81. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction on the expenditure of Rs. 1,04,43,248 spent by it, but only on Rs. 24,78,458 as in his view the difference represented the gross interest paid by the assessee to its customers, who had made deposits with the bank', and such gross interest could not be treated as expenditure, as in his view, only the amount of expenditure determined after setting off the interest received by the bank from its customers against the interest paid by it, was relevant for the purposes of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. That view of the Income-tax Officer was affirmed...
T.V. Jagatrakshagan (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. N. Futaree Bai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ303
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No. 1090 of 1993 dated 22.3.1995, confirming the fair order and decretal order of the Rent Controller, passed in R.C.O.P.No. 1079 of 1992 dated 11.8.1993, dismissing the petition for eviction.2. The first petitioner (since deceased) was the landlord and the petitioners 2 to 6 are his legal representatives. The respondents are the tenants. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenants under Section 10(3 )(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act claiming that the premises in question, viz., shop No. 3 in Door No. 237/1, Quaide - Millat Road, Triplicane, Madras belonged to the first petitioner is required for his wife for doing tailoring business. The tenants contested the petition on the ground that the requirement of the premises for business purpose for his wife is not bona fide and that since the demand fo...
S. Kannappan (Died) and ors. Vs. the Commr., Tiruvottriyur Municipalit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ235
ORDERToom Meenakumari, J. 1. This writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the electrical poles, service lines and the electricity supply lines from the first petitioner's land in Sannadhi Street in S. No. 169/1 of Sathangadu Village of Kaladipet, Thiruvotriyur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land of about 4 acres in S. No. 169/1 known as Thirupurasundari Garden of Sathangadu Village in the street called Sannadhi Street, Kaladtpet, Salhangadu. This petitioner has prepared a layout for the said land and obtained sanction in 1975. An extent of about 1 acre abutting Sannadhi Street in the said area was reserved for construction of a cinema theatre by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondents/Electricity Board had erected street lights in the petitioner's land in violation of section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. 3. ...
Shanmugadurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary and Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC522
ORDER1. Since the issue in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring Road to ensure and to regulate orderly development under the project known as Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions. For the convenience, I shall refer the fact narrated in W.P.No. 10013 of 1992. According to him, the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing R.S.No. 703 to an extent of 0.43.5 an hectare, 766/1 to an extent of 0.31.5 hectare, 766/2 to an extent of 0.27.5 hectare, 779/1 to an extent of 0.33.0 hectare, 799/2 to an extent of 0.33.5 hectares and 759 to an extent of 0.58.5 totalling 2.27.5 hectares etc., in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpatt...
Adar Tea Produce Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR608(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The above writ petitions are for a writ of declaration to declare Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1995, ultra vires, illegal and void of the Constitution of India.2. Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1995, has amended the definition of 'plant' in Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), with retrospective effect from which date the Act came into force by excluding tea bushes or livestock from the scope of the definition of the term 'plant'. The assessment year with which we are concerned in both the writ petitions is 1994-95. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of the Act, and hence, in my view, it is not necessary to notice the result of the assessment proceedings in detail. However, to determine the question that arises in the writ petitions, it would suffice to state that the petitioners have claimed depreciation allowable under the Act in respect of opening balance of the tea bushes at th...
Aruppukkottai Sri Jayavilas (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Leelavathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC244; 2001ACJ1767
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Aruppukkottai Sri Jayavilas Private Limited and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. are the appellants herein.2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant No. 2 to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,77,000 on behalf of the appellant No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, to respondents-claimants for the death of the deceased, the husband of the claimant No. 1, this joint appeal has been presented by both the appellants.3. The appellant No. 1 is the owner of the bus bearing registration No. TCM 1010. The said bus was insured by the appellant No. 1 with the appellant No. 2, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The respondent No. 1, claimant No. 1, is the wife of the deceased. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the sens of the deceased. The respondent No. 6 is the daughter of the deceased.4. The deceased Alagarsamy was the head of the family. He was originally employed as Supervisor in a Land Mortgage Bank at Pudukkottai and he later left the job and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »