Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
Rahamathulla Vs. Rasool Bivi and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC672
ORDER1. 14th respondent in E.P.No.151 of 1993 in O.S.No.165 of 1961 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town is the revision petitioner herein.2. Suit is one for partition and preliminary decree was passed on 14.9.1962. Thereafter on 25.8.1967 final decree was also passed allotting decree holder/plaintiff 'ADEF' plot in the Commissioner's plan measuring about 940 sq.ft of land. Present execution petition in E.P.No.151 of 1993 was filed on 19.3.1993 for taking delivery of the property. Notice was issued to judgment-debtors. They took a contention that the execution petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and decree holder is not entitled to take possession.3. Rejecting the said contention, lower court allowed property to be delivered on the basis of final decree. The same is challenged in this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.4. Under Article 136 of Limitation Act, a period of 12 years is provided for execution of decree when the de...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai Vs. Smt. P. Manonmani, Karur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC1; [2000]245ITR48(Mad)
ORDERJudgement pronounced by R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The reference before us concerns the true scope of Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, as to whether it's application is confined to income of estates of deceased persons who died testate, or would extend to income of estates of persons who died intestate.2. That Section is found in Chapter XV titled 'liability in Special Cases' in Part-E under the heading Executors. Section 168 reads thus:Executors: (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the income of the estate of deceased person shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the executor-(a)If there is only one executor then as if the executor were an individual; or(b) if there are more executors than one, then, as if the executors were an association of persons,and for the purposes of this Act, the executor shall be deemed to be resident or non-resident according as the deceased person was a resident or non-resident during the previous year in which his death took place.(2) The assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Palanivelu and 2 Others Vs. Sadasiva Padayachi (Died) and 7 Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC486
ORDERl. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.58 of-1983 in reversing that of the learnedDistrict Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.166 of 1982. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed for declaration of title of the property in favour of the plaintiffs, for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, to put the plaintiffs in possession of suit item No.4 free from obstructions of the first defendant, to put the plaintiffs in possession of suit items 1 to 3 free from obstructions of defendants 1 to 3 and for future mesne profits.3. According to the plaintiffs, the properties originally belonged to Muthu Padayachi, the maternal grand-father of the plaintiffs. He had only two daughters namely 4th defendant and Rathinambal. The 4th defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs. He had no male issue and in fact both the 4th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jainoon Vs. M. Ammanulla Khan and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad381; 2000(2)CTC645; (2000)IIMLJ714
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Madurai in A.S.No.231 of 1984 in reversing the judgment ofthe learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, in O.S.No.311 of 1980. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 5,000 towards damages arising out of alleged defamation, mental agony and medical expenses. According to them they belong to Muslim Community and are members of the Periapatnam Jamath. Jalai Jamal Pallivasal in Periapatnam is under the administration of Jamath. It is under the administration and management of the Jamath. Members of Jamath would elect a committee and the present committee consisting of 11 members was functioning from 3.8.1978. Though the committee was unregistered from time immemorial, the committee was administering the Pallivasal and its properties. The first defendant is the Secretary of the Committee. The first plaintiff is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC123
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused, was tried is Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, and stands convicted for an offence of murder on an allegation that at 2.30 p.m. on 15.5.1989, he cut Ponnusamy, his father, with a knife, M.O.1. The learned Sessions Judge, on convicting the accused, sentenced him to imprisonment for life though the accused was below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence and at the time of trial and conviction.2. The case of the prosecution is this: The accused is the son of the deceased. They were residents of Kedarai which is within the jurisdiction of Gopichettipalayam Police Station. The accused is the younger brother of one Venkatachalam, who is deaf and dumb. The mother of Venkatachalam and the accused, died about four months prior, to the date of incident. After the death of his wife, the deceased wanted to many for the second time. The...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Thanjavur Vs. G. Ramasamy and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC92
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 1990. The Insurance Company is the appellant in the above appeal.2. According to the claimant, the accident took place near Natarajapuram on 5.3.1990 at about 7.00 hours. At the place of occurrence, the road runs East to West. He was riding his cycle and was proceeding towards Ariyur from Siruvathaiyur, namely from West to East keeping to his left and by observing the rules of road. When he was nearing Natrajapuram, the vehicle bearing registration No.T.D.O.9781 (motor cycle) belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner in a high speed. It was coming on the opposite direction, namely, from East to West. As a result of the rash and negligent manner of driving, the driver lost control over his vehicle and as a consequence it dashed against the petitioner's cycle. As a result of the impa...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasivam V. Vs. Management of Madras Rubber Factory and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR4]; (2001)IIILLJ1021Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent Labour Court in connection with the impugned order dated November 17, 1998, made in I.A. No. 562 of 1998 in I.D. No. 616 of 1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pay the petitioner Rs. 3,500 per month as interim relief pending disposal of the I.D. No. 616 of 1997, on the part of the second respondent Labour Court and issue such further or other directions as this Court deems it fit. 2. Heard Mr. V. Prakash, for the writ petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Mohan, for Ramasubramaniam Associates, appearing for the first respondent. 3. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner, an employee of the first respondent, Madras Rubber Factory, and a trade union activist was dismissed from service with effect from January 15, 1997. T...
Tag this Judgment!Council of Seventh Day Adventist Educational Institution Vs. Regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1623Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in No. TN/SL/14759/Exem/97 dated February 12, 1997.2. Heard Mr. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for Mr. V. Manohar appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Though notice of motion was ordered, the respondents have entered appearance and also filed their counter.3. The impugned order dated February 12, 1997 has been passed in exercise of powers conferred in para 79 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The relaxation already granted in favour of the Writ petitioner had been withdrawn and the petitioner has been further directed to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from April 1, 1982 as an unexempted establishment. This is being challenged on ground that the order has been passed in violatio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ravichandran Transports Mettur Dam, Salem District Vs. United Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC748; (2000)IIMLJ318
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No.158 of 1983 on the file of the 9th Additional City Civil Judge, Madras and the plaintiff therein are the appellant and the respondent respectively in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs.64,871.25 made up of Rs.60,345 as damages suffered after salvation of the goods with subsequent interest on Rs.60,345 at 18% p.a. The suit was decreed on merits. Hence the present appeal before this court at the instance of the defendant. Heard Mr.D.Rajendran learned counsel appearing for the defendant and Mr.N.Balasubramanian learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.2. The plaint allegations are as follows:'The insured of the plaintiff has it's registered office at Madras. They booked for transport 360 bags weighing about 9,000 Kgs. P.V.C. Resin 124 to M/s. Suryodhaya Industries Limited, Bangalore under Lorry Receipt No.886...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Centre Office Center-i World Trade Centre, Mumba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC173
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.M.P. No.21536 of 1999 in W.P.No.13216 of 199 dated 21.9.1999, allowing the respondent in this writ appeal to peruse the documents.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:The writ petitioner has challenged the appointment of S.V. Raghavan, R.Ramanujam and M.Subramanian as Directors of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Tuticorin. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner prayed . thatsuitable directions may be issued to produce the files and they also may be permitted to peruse the files. The matter was taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.C.P.Nos. 15282 to 15284 of 1999 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 29.10.1999 made a direction that the writ petition may be disposed, of expeditiously, if possible within a month. Learned counsel made an application stating that without the disposal of this writ appeal, the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »