Chennai Court April 2000 Judgments
Bank of India, Egmore Branch, Madras 600008 Vs. K. Nageswara Rao and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC287
ORDER1. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.21,669.20 with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit was based on the ground that the plaintiff are the dealers in cotton yarn and they used to purchase their requirements from Madras from various parties through M/s D.S.Subramaniam & Company who are yam brokers. Towards the said purchases made by the plaintiff, they used to make payments either by drafts or by cheques to the concerned parties through M/s D.S.Subramaniam & Company, yarn Brokers at Madras. In this connection, the plaintiff got a 'Crossed Account Payee' draft for a sum of Rs.19,880 on 11.10.1979 in favour of A.Venkataswami Mudaliar & Company, yarn Merchants, No.395 Mint Street, Madras-3 against supply of Yam. The plaintiff also draw a crossed cheque endorsed in favour of the same person for Rs.1,867.88. The plaintiff sent the said draft and cheque on 12.1...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mahimaidoss Vs. Vanathayya and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad288; 2000(2)CTC453; (2000)IIMLJ478
ORDER1. Second defendant in O.S.No.10219 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Judge. City Civil Court. Madras, aggrieved by the Order dated 23.2.99 made in I.A.No. 6986 of 1998, dismissing his petition filed under Section 151, C.P.C.. to receive the list of documents filed by him, has filed the above revision before this Court.2. The first respondent herein-plaintiff filed in O.S.No.10219 of 1996 prayed for declaration of title to the suit property and for a decree of possession directing the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to plaintiff. The case of the petitioner before the trial court was that he has acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. He has also pleaded in his written statement that the plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 29.4.77. directing him to quit and deliver vacant possession of thesuit property. The plaintiff also claimed damages from him. The trial court framed issues on 12.11.1997 and directed the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaggiyavathi and Seven Others Vs. the Commissioner of Civil Supplies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC108
ORDER1. Petitioners are all legal representatives of the licensees/vendors of Kerosene. In these writ petitions, petitioners challenge the circular of the Government withdrawing the previous orders of the commissioner and directing that on expiry of the licensee, the license and the registration shall not be renewed to the retail vendors and hand cartmen.2. The main submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that their registration and the licensees have to be renewed inspite of the expiry of their licences and any refusal will be violating their fundamental right of trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and violative of Article 14.3. The brief history as well as the provisions relating to the orders of the Government are necessary in order to dispose of these writ petitions. The right of the dealers are governed by two control orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They are :(i) Kerosene (Fixation and Ceiling Prices) Order, 1978 issued by ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamizhaga Kudiasaivazh Nallvutor Munnetra Sangam 232/91 Annai Sathya N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC137
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be a Registered Association under the Societies Registration Act. The prayer in this writ petition is for a issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide fire-proof house/shelters to the residents of Annai Sathya Nagar and also to provide suitable rehabilitation measures and pass such further orders.2. The members of the petitioner's association are occupying an extent of C13-22-0174 sq.ft of land opposite to the Reserve Bank of India in R.S.No.11736 of VOC Nagar Village. The land, as of now, is in the name of the Government, Revenue Department. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner's association have encroached and occupied the land belonging to the Government. It is, further, seen from the records, especially in the counterfiled in W.P.No.1348 of 1992, that notice under section 7 of the Encroachment Act has been issued on 14.7.82 and Section 6 notice was issued on 6.1.1983. This proceedings were approved by the Collector and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Mad)135; [2005]273ITR347(Mad)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner had filed the return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 on March 31, 1993. An assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued. The claim towards expenses incurred on repairs/replacement was admitted in the said order. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was informed by the Joint Commissioner that he has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1993-94 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 and that he proposed to reassess the income and recompute the loss. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice is barred by limitation and is one issued without jurisdiction.3. Section 147 of the Income-tax Act provides for the reassessment of income escaping assessment. The proviso to Section 147 states that no action shall be taken after the expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3318
K. Natarajan, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 20-8-90 in S.C. No. 174 of 1989.2. The appellants will hereinafter be referred to as 'accused 1 and 2'. The acquitted accused will be referred to as 'the third accused'. They stood trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. Three charges were framed against the accused. Under charge No. 1 A. 1 and A. 2 were charged for an Offence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC on the allegation that on 19-5-1984 between 8-00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. in front of Pazhandiamman Temple near the Seashore, Panayarkuppam, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder of Radhakrishan, who came from Andhra Pradesh by strangulating his neck. Under charge No.2, the appellants were charged for an offence under Section 392, IPC on the allegation that in the,course of the same transaction, they commit...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Municipal Shop Merchants Association and Etc. Etc. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad393
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. These writ petitions are filed to quash the Notification of auction published by the respondents and direct the respondents to grant renewal of lease for a further period.2. The reliefs asked for in these writ petitions are mainly based upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 1991-94 of 1991 arising out of SLP (G) Nos. 2509/86 etc. The Judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court on 23-4-1991. It runs as follows :--'Leave granted in SLPs. and Rule Nisi issued in writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in occupation of municipal buildings, shops, bunks, stall etc. having obtained the same by public auction. They have been occupying the premises for more than five to sixyears. They have been paying the rent which was determined at the public auction. It is the case of the Municipality that the petitioners have no right to continue in the premises and the Municipality wants to bring those premises to public auction again so ...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai University Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad391
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. Challenging the order dated 27-12-1999, passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, rejecting the request for exemption from payment of property tax for the basement and ground floor of the building at Door No. 18-13, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, Division-106, Chennai. the present writ petition is filed.2. The petitioner/University is offering Distance Education Programme with study centres in various cities. They have a study centre in Chennai City. It is housed in their own building at Door No. 19-A3, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. According to the petitioner, the study centres owned and administered by the petitioner and are used exclusively for the purpose of imparting education to the students enrolled in the correspondence course. The facilities made available by the petitioner are (i) Library (ii) Audio Lecture Cassettes (iii) Video Lecture Cassettes (iv) Previous Year Question Papers (v) Printed Lesson Units (vi) Spot admission and ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3536
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein is the father of one Haleel Rahman alias Kaleel and seeks to challenge the order dated 29-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, directing the detention of the said Haleel Rahman alias Kaleel, hereinafter referred to as the detenu for the sake of convenience, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. In support of this order, a number of grounds are suggested. It is stated that the said detenu is the sympathizer of the banned organisation called 'Al-Umma' and has established close contacts with Zulfikar Ali alias Appa Kutty alias Thulfukar Ali and Hakkim alias Pavadai Hakkim. It is further suggested in the grounds that one Jahir Hussain has hatched a conspiracy along with the detenu at Palani and Madurai to plant a bomb at the Police Quarters which were being constructed in Coimbatore. This w...
Tag this Judgment!Venkittu Achari Vs. C. Vaithiyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC133; 2000(3)CTC37
ORDER1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein towards damages for malicious prosecution. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he is reputed person of the locality and there was enmity between two groups of persons headed by one Thiru. Packirisamy Pattar and Thiru.Palani Pattar in regard to the management of Arulmighu Kamakshi Amman Temple. The plaintiff belongs to Thiru Packirisamy Pattar group and the defendant belongs to the said Palani Pattar group. In view of the dispute with regard to the management of the temple, there was enmity between parties and the defendant in order to damage the reputation of the plaintiff launched a false complaint on 17.3.1983 with the police as if the plaintiff and two others used filthy languages against the defendant and on such complaint the plaintiff was arrested at 9.30 p.m. on 17.3.1983 and be was released on bail at 11.00 a.m. on 18.3.1983. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »