Chennai Court September 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.
G. Nanchil Kumaran Vs. Govindasamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ660
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Challenging the order allowing the application for interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 1 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff, Nanchil Kumaran, the defendant has filed this civil revision petition.2. Govindasamy Reddiar filed a suit in O.S.No. 128 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 49,000 being the past damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and for further damages at the rate of Rs. 100 per day as future damages from the date of plaint till the defendant surrenders possession.3. The defendant, the petitioner herein, filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was the benami of the suit property and that the suit property was actually purchased in his name by utilising the money pooled by the plaintiff's daughter, the erst-while wife of the petitioner herein, which included the defendant's money to the tune of Rs. 70,000 which is 2/3rd of the sale con...
Kunjandi and Co. by Managing Partner, K. Dharman Vs. the State of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ741
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The original side appeal is directed as against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.417 of 1983.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 3,01,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum contending as follows:The plaintiff became the highest bidder for running arrack shop No. 43, Kottaimedu, Coimbatore Municipality in the auction held on 27.5.1981 and the plaintiff's bid amount was Rs. 1,00,000 as monthly rent. That was confirmed on 4.6.1981 by the Collector of Coimbatore, the second defendant. The plaintiff deposited three months rental advance viz., a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and the earnest money of Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff chose a site for locating the arrack shop and after entering into an agreement with the concerned owner, paid the necessary rental advance for one year to the owner and effected necessary construction to make it suitable for running the arrack shop by spending a sum of Rs. 16,970 and Rs. 2,025 tow...
A. Thambusamy Vs. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cudd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC628
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A. Raman, J.1. The order of detention was passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, whereby branding Thiru. Ravi as a bootlegger, Re passed the order of detention under Section 3 of the Act, 14 of 1982. Challenging the same, his uncle has filed this habeas corpus Petition; The detenu was concerned in four cases, all arising under the T.N.P. Act during the year 1998. Whileso, another case in Crime No. 392 of 1998 under section 4(1)(A) of T.N.P. Act on the basis of occurrence dated 30.12.1998 came to be registered against the detenu. In the above circumstances, the detaining authority, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, felt satisfied that the detenu was indulging in prejudicial activities and therefore, passed the order of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Tamil translation of the ground furnished to him, there is no reference to the effect that the representation if any made ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.M. Itoop
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR232(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. We find no substance in this reference. In the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swamp and Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , it has been held that the rules providing for method of valuation under the Wealth-tax Act are not substantive but procedural law and that the provisions of the amended rules are applicable to all pending proceedings. The court, inter alia, held (headnote) : 'Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which came into force, on April 1, 1979, prescribing the method for valuing a house wholly or mainly used for residential purposes, merely provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule 1BB, it would not have been objectionable, nor would there have been any legal impediment, to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years' purchase value.' 2. The court has also observed that procedural law, generally speaking, is applicable to pendi...
K.P.M. Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC237; 2000(115)ELT314(Mad)
P. Satyasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order of the first respondent in Appeal No. 6 of 1989 (T) dated 28-2-1989 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said Order and also direct the respondents to classify the forged piece of Iron or Steel manufactured by the petitioner under Tariff Heading 7208 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :The petitioner is a firm which inter alia manufactures roughly shaped pieces by forging iron or steel. These are semi finished products. They have a rough appearance and require considerable further work to be done to them before they assure the shape of finished products usable for the required purposes. From 1-3-1986 onwards the petitioner is classifying and clearing the said products under Chapter Heading 7208 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. Under Notification No. 208/1983 final products falling under 7208 are exempted from duty if they were made from goods of speci...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.V.M. Chellamuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)303; [2000]243ITR305(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. It was contended for the respondent that the reopening' of the wealth-tax assessment was unwarranted as the declaration filed along with the original return to the effect that no member of the Hindu undivided family had wealth of Rs. 1,00,000, was based upon the assessee's declaration in terms of the mandate contained in the Act. We do not find any substance in such a contention.2. As the Assessing Officer has rightly stated, he had been misguided by the statement made by the assessee that no member of the Hindu undivided family had wealth of Rs. 1,00,000. What the Assessing Officer was required to do was to make sure that the Hindu undivided family did not have any member, with wealth of Rs. 1,00,000 or more, in order that the lower rate may be applied to the assessment of that Hindu undivided family. As it transpires that the smaller-Hindu undivided family did have assessable wealth the assessing authority was justified in reopening the assessment.3. As to who...
Lilamani Vs. Bien Aime Pouchepalliamballe and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC615; (2000)1MLJ397
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S. No. 60 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry in O.S. No. 275 of 1981. Then 1st defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.2. The suit was filed for a declaration that the Birth Certificate No. 222 of 1976, dated 26.2.1976 is null and void, for a declaration that no child by name Dilcoumar Bionaimo was born to the 1st defendant through Saravattourayon Bionaimo and also for declaration that the judgment obtained by the first defendant in O.P. No. 49 of 1978 on the basis of the fictitious birth certificate is null and void.3. According to the plaintiff, she is the legally wedded wife of Bionaimo Saravattourayon. Their marriage was celebrated at Mairle Pondicherry as per the provisions of Civil Code and 10 children were born to them out of the wedlock. They are under the custody of t...
Chandranathan Vs. Esthar Rani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad60
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Chandranathan, first defendant in OS No. 98/83 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram, is the appellant herein. 2. Respondents 1 to 3, the plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Though there are two defendants, the first defendant alone filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 24 of 1985, challenging the judgment of the trial Court. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties filed some additional documents. The First Appellate Judge, after considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the evidence, oral and documentary, let in before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal by the first defendant, the appellant herein. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows :-- 'The first plaintiff is the m...
Ponnayee and ors. Vs. Perumayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ282
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These second appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as both these appeals would arise out of the common judgments rendered by both the trial Court and lower appellate Court in two suits in which the parties arc the same.2. Ponnayee, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 322 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Tlruchengode and the third defendant in O.S. No. 743 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif. Tiruchengode is the appellant herein.3. One Muthu Gounder filed a suit in O.S. No. 548 of 1979 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sankari on 17-4-1979 for declaration of title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the properties. The suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 743 of 1982. Ponnayee, the third defendant in the said suit filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 942 of 1979 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sankari on 20-7-1979 for specific performance and this s...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Jalal Sayyedur Rahman (Accountable Perso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR622(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is under the repealed Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question is regarding the applicability or otherwise of Section 12 of the Act to the facts of this case.2. One Jalal Khalilur Rahman died on June 30, 1977. He had created a wakf in the year 1947 and the terms had been recorded in the deed executed in the year 1965. Under that deed by Clause 10, he had clearly categorically declared that he had divested himself of the ownership of the property. The other clause inter alia provided for the appointment of mutawalli, the said Rahman being the first mutavalli. His son was to succeed him in that office after the father's life time. The benefit of the wakf was for the descendants of Rahman and when the family had become extinct would go to the Mosque named in the deed.3. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty as also the Tribunal on these facts have rightly held that the value of the property which was dedicated to the wakf the property bein...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »