Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
M. Muthuroyappa Vs. Muniappa and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad334; 2000(3)CTC141
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishangiri in A.S.No.8 of 1986 in reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Hozur in I.A.No.344 of 1981 in O.S.No.356 of 1968.2. I.A.No.344 of 1981 was filed under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC by the appellant herein and in the affidavit in support of the said petition, the appellant has contended as follows:-He filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of his easementary right of passage to take his cattle to the suit lands through the lands of the defendants and for a permanent injunction and for recovery of damages for Rs 2,000 per year for the loss of agricultural operations and for future mesne profits. The defendants contested the suit and ultimately a decree was passed against the defendant on 24.7.1973. Against the decree, the defendants filed petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C to set aside the decree and the said application was dismissed. A further appeal was fil...
Tag this Judgment!P. Soundarya Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR77(Mad)
ORDERP. Thangavel, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment, dated August 19, 1996, in Criminal A. No. 248 of 1989, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the judgment, dated November 6, 1989, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. I., Egmore, Madras, in E. O. C. C. No. 136 of 1984. 2. The revision petitioner, Mrs. P. Soundarya, is the sister of Kumari R. Jayapratha, a well known film actress in Telugu and Tamil movies, and is residing with her at door No. 1, Hindi Prachara Sabha Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17. In the course of the search made in pursuance of the action taken under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on February 17, 1983, a statement was recorded from the revision petitioner with regard to the purchase of the house bearing door No. 20, First Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on November 22, 1982, from one V. Seshamma. The revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Visalam Chit Funds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR628(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents, the Commissioner of Income-tax, the District Registrar, Pondicherry, and the Inspector-General of Registration, to register the documents of discharge or release deed, cancelling or releasing the security over the properties offered for payment of future chit instalments without insisting on the production of income-tax clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner is a chit fund company. It obtains from its prized subscribers or their guarantors security, documents charging their immovable properties in favour of the petitioner, to secure the amount of the prized chits. Such documents are registered with the sub-registrar. 3. As and when the amounts payable to the petitioner are received in full, the petitioner executes discharge receipts which are also registered. The petitioner claims that Section 230A of the Income-tax Act is inapplicable to the registration o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Soundarya Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Mad)447; [2001]113TAXMAN534(Mad)
ORDERThis criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 19-8-1996, in Crl. A. No. 248 of 1989 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the judgment, dated 6-11 -1989, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.l., Egmore, Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 136 of 1984. 2. The revision petitioner, Mrs. P. Soundarya, is the sister of Kumari R. Jayapratha, a well-known film actress in Telugu and Tamil movies, and is residing with her at Door No. 1, Hindi Prachara Sabha Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17. In the course of the search made in pursuance of the action taken under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 17-2-1983, a statement was recorded from the revision petitioner with regard to the purchase of the house bearing Door No. 20, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on 22-11-1982, from one V. Seshamma. The revision petitioner had stated that the said house was purchased for...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran Transports Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC69
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. 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/- @ 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 its 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, Bang...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Visalam Chit Funds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]245ITR628(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents, the Commissioner of Income-tax, the District Registrar, Pondicherry, and the Inspector-General of Registration, to register the documents of discharge or release deed, cancelling or releasing the security over the properties offered for payment of future chit instalments without insisting on the production of income-tax clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The petitioner is a chit fund company. It obtains from its prized subscribers or their guarantors security, documents charging their immovable properties in favour of the petitioner, to secure the amount of the prized chits. Such documents are registered with the sub-registrar.As and when the amounts payable to the petitioner are received in full, the petitioner executes discharge receipts which are also registered. The petitioner claims that section 230A of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable to the registration of such disc...
Tag this Judgment!Renox Commercials Ltd. Vs. Inventa Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad213
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Renox Commercials Limited has filed a suit in C.S. No. 518/99 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,23,123/- with future Interest at the rate of 18% per annum against Inventa Technologies Private Limited, Chennai and Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Chennai the defendants. 2. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this application No. 2290 of 1999 praying for a direction to the Inventa Technologies Private Limited, the respondent/first defendant herein, to furnish security for the suit claim failing which, to order attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the first defendant/respondent herein. 3. This application was admitted by this Court on 21-7-1999 and notice was issued to the respondent for furnishing security, returnable by three weeks. On receipt of this notice, the respondent/first defendant filed a counter through the affidavit dated 30-8-1999, sworn to by its Managing Director. The applicant/plaintiff fil...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR805]; (2000)IILLJ945Mad
T. Meena Kumari, J.1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with P.W. cases Nos. 49, 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61 of 1991 on the file of the first respondent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and quash the order, dated October 31, 1992.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management has argued that due to a bandh on July 20, 1990 the petitioner-company declared holiday on July 20, 1990 and declared September 30, 1990 as a working day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that having availed the holiday on July 20, 1990, the respondents wanted to avail the holiday on September 30, 1990 which happened to be a declared holiday due to Dasara. The wages were not paid on September 30, 1990. The respondents workmen approached the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act on the ground that they are entitled for the wages on September 30, 1990 which happened to be a declared holiday. Learned counsel has argued that...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Iyer Vs. Dakshinamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad388; 2000(1)CTC616
ORDER1.The plaintiff who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the second defendant is a lessee of the suit coconut thope or a mere licensee? The trial court held that the second defendant is only a licensee and not a lessee, while the first appellate court had taken the view that the second defendant is a lessee and not a mere licensee to collect the usufructs.3. At the time of admission, the following two questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:-(i) Whether the lower appellate court is right in law in holding that the respondent is a lessee of the coconut thope and not a licensee to collect the usufructs therefrom and while doing so, whether the lower appellate court has omitted to take note of the principles laid down by this Court?(ii) Whether there has been misconstruction of and omission to construe the material evidence on rec...
Tag this Judgment!K. Andi Reddiar Vs. Ovu Ammal and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC184
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.344 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal, the second respondent in the appeal died during the pendency of the second appeal and the respondents 4 to 6 were impleaded as per the order dated 27.1.1999 and they have also entered appearance.2. Heard Mr.M.VeIusamy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.P.Venkat for the respondents. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:-'Whether the lower appellate court has committed an error of law in requiring the plaintiff to prove the Will Ex-A.1?'However, Mr.M.VeIusamy, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for permission to raise additional substantial question of law at the final hearing. Both sides through their respective counsel advanced arguments in respect of the questions of law raised by Mr.M.VeIusamy at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »