Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
M/S Sekaran Real Estates, a Partnership Firm, by Managing Partner K. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC613; (2000)IIMLJ100
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order of remand made by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.316 of 1987, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. The appellant/plaintiff has filed in O.S.No.6993 of1983 before the XIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras praying for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant. Punjab National Bank to give credit of a sum of Rs 20,000 deposited on 25.4.83 in his current account maintained by the Bank and direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 20,000 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree in the suit until realisation. By judgment and decree dated 8.4.85, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The defendant Bank filed an appeal in A.S.No.316 of 1987 before the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras. While the appeal of the defendant is pending before the lower appellate court, the plaintiff has filed C.M.P.No.6 of 1988 under Order ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasan Vs. Smt. Balambal and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC646
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.120 of 1998 in O.S.No.75 of 1996dated 17.4.1998 on the file of District Mursif, Thiruvarur, the petitionerplaintiff has filed the above revision before this Court.2. The petitioner-plaintiff by name Srinivasan through power agent has filed the above suit for recovery of plaint B schedule property from the defendants and for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent;from in any manner interfering with the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaint A' Schedule property is the whole property owned by plaintiff of which plaint 'B' schedule is a part. The suit 'B' schedule property is a lane measuring about 125 sq.ft. in T.S.No.166/1 No.2. Vijayapuram Vattam. It is the plaintiffs case that this suit property was owned and enjoyed by the plaintiff and that the defendants while constructing their house in 1992 trespassed into plaint 'B' Schedule property despite objections and police complaints by the plaintiff and have erected concrete pill...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Hasan Abubucker Vs. Kottikulam St. Mohideen Pallivasal therkku Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC193; (2000)IIMLJ461
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirunelveli in A.S.No.67 of 1993 confirming thejudgment of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thirunelveli, in O.S.No.467 of 1982. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed for a declaration that Melapalayam Rahmania High School, belonged to the plaintiff/ Pallivasal and that the first defendant should hand over the administration of the School to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the High School belongs to Pallivasal and was established 80 years prior to the suit by collection of funds from the members of Jamath. The School is being conducted in the property at No.35 belonging to the plaintiff in the same street. Since then the members of Jamath had been providing funds for the administration of Pallivasal and also the School through the Pallivasal. For the purpose of administering the properties belonging to Pallivasal, a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S New Royal Talkies Rep. by Its Partner, Thirunelveli Vs. the Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC289
ORDER1. The respondent licensing authority in each of the above writ petition had sent a communication dated 20.2.93 to all the 'C' form licence holders. The circular is identical. Under the said circular the licensees are informed that it is brought to the notice of the licensing authority that the licensees are charging fee for parking cycles, scooters and other vehicles and this act of the licensees is in violation of condition No.16 attached to the 'C' form licence, as such a right to collect the money is not specifically provided for. Therefore the licensees are informed that if they indulge in collecting parking fee for the purpose mentioned above, action will be taken against them in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 for violation of the licence conditions. This circular, which is common and addressed to various licensees, is being challenged in all the above writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. It appears that condition No.16 a...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2002]257ITR476(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The petition is filed by the Income-tax Officer to compound the offence.2. The respondent-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 276CC(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent-accused preferred an appeal in C. A. No. 46 of 1996. The appellate court by judgment dated August 12, 1996, confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was reduced to a period of three months. However, the appellate court has confirmed the sentence of fine, as imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judg-ment, the accused has preferred this revision. When the revision cases came up for final hearing, the complainant-Income-tax Officer has filed this application seeking leave to compound the offence. It is alleged in the petition that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has passed an order, that if the petitioner-accused agrees to pay compounding fee of Rs. 10,000, the matte...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN499(Mad)
ORDERThe petition is filed by the Income Tax Officer to compound the offence.2. The respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under section 276CC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent/accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 46 of 1996. The appellate court by judgment dated 12-8-1996 confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months. However, the appellate court has confirmed the sentence of fine as imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision. When the revision case came up for final hearing, the complainant - Income Tax Officer has filed this application seeking leave to compound the offence. It is alleged in the petition that the Chief Commissioner has passed an order that if the petitioner/accused agrees to pay compounding fee of Rs. 10,000, the matter can be ...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Koil Kadaikarargal Sangam, Madurai, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC471
ORDER1. In W.P. No.1178 of 2000, an Association of tenants of ArulmighuMeenakshi Sundareswarar Koil, Madurai has sought to quash the GovernmentOrder in G.O. Ms. No.353, Tamil Development and Culture, Hindu ReligiousDepartment dated 4.6.1999. 2. In the next batch of writ petitions, i.e. W.P. Nos.1234 to 1265 of 2000, individual tenants have preferred writ petitions against the orders of the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., fixing the rent for the premises in their occupation. 3. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are given below: About 200 shops are situated in and around the Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Koil, Madurai. It is stated that the petitioners are tenants for several years and continuing. It is further not disputed that the Rent Control Act. does not apply to the buildings coming under the H. R. & C.E. Department. The Government has issued guidelines in G.O. Ms. No.56 dated 19.2.1998 fixing the rent relating to lands, shops, buildings and houses b...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bharat Overseas B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC41
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above three writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as these writ appeals have been filed against the same order of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1407 of 1998, dated 19-11-1999.2. For the purpose of discussion, we intend to refer to the cause title as given in the first case i.e. Writ Appeal No.2371 of 1999.3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No.1407 of 1998 against respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) and the appellant (the third respondent in writ petition), questioning the order, dated 27-2-1998, of the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India granted approval by virtue of powers conferred under Section 35(B)(i)(h) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the B.R. Act) to the fifth respondent herein viz., Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the fifth respondent bank) to appoint the appellant as...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Ponnu Vs. the Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC423
ORDER1. The complaint of the petitioner is that the remand order, the copy ofwhich was sought for by the detenue in her representation was not supplied,that it was not supplied is not disputed. It is however contended by thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is open to the detaining authorityto base his subjective satisfaction on the special report submitted by thesponsoring authority which sets out the fact of remand, and that in this case,the detaining authority had based his subjective satisfaction on such specialreport. While it may be open to the detaining authority to form his subjectivesatisfaction on materials, which he considers to be credible, that does notpreclude the detenue from seeking documents which are necessary for the purposeof making an effective representation. The fact that the detaining authorityhad not relied upon the documents sought by the detenu does not cloth thedetaining authority with the right now to furnish such documents.2. As to whether the d...
Tag this Judgment!Felisraj J. Vs. Indian Medical Practitioners Co-operative Pharmacy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ683Mad; (2000)IIMLJ520
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Co-operative Pharmacy, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated December 2, 1999 made in proceedings E/99-2000 of the respondent, by which order the petitioner had been transferred from Chennai to Tadepalle in Andhra Pradesh.2. Heard Mr. P. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. F.B. Benjamin, George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. This Court granted interim stay on December 14, 1999 and to vacate the same, the respondent filed W.M.P. No. 30034 of 1999. The respondent had also filed a detailed counter. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.4. According to the petitioner the order of transfer is a mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power and that the petitioner, who is a last grade employee is not liable to be transferred from Chennai to Tadepalle in An...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »