Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Roman Catholic Church, Maniaran Kunnu at Amsi, Rep. by Its Parish Prie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ190
ORDER1. The third defendant in O.S.No.316 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif. Kuzhithurai, Is the revision petitioner, The suit has been filed by the first respondent herein against respondents 2 and 3, who are respectively his father and brother and the revision petitioner herein, for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit property of an extent of 2 acres 60 cents in R.S.No.325 of Painkulam Village, averring as follows:2. The suit property originally belonged to his grandfather, who purchased the same from the previous owners as per sale deed dated 29.4.1973 (M.E). The suit property being an ancestral property, the first respondent is entitled to 1/3rd share, while respondents 2 and 3 are each entitled to 1/3rd share. The revision petitioner has its property and Church south of the suit property separated by compound wall of about 8 feet height. Just prior to the suit, at the request of the Church, the second respondent surrendered about 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.M.S. Jailani Beevi Vs. J. Madan Lal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ823
ORDER1. The landlady is the revision petitioner. It arises out of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent from the property belonging to her on the ground of owner's occupation or in the alternative for additional accommodation.2. The facts leading to the civil revision petition are as under:The property an extent of 1200 sq.ft. in premises No.58, ground floor, Pondy Bazaar, T. Nagar, Chennai 17, belongs to the revision petitioner. The respondent became a tenant in the year 1984 on a monthly rent of Rs.900 and in course of time it was increased and at the time of filing the eviction petition it was Rs.2000 per month. The petitioner's husband and her two sons are carrying on business in footwear and leather goods at No.35, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 17, in a rented shop on a monthly rent of Rs.650 under one Ramani Iyer. The area of the shop is only 80 sq.ft. By reason of the joi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lucas Vs. Jayachandra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC362; (2001)2MLJ307
ORDER1. The order impugned allowing the application filed by the first respondent herein permitting her to implead herself as a second plaintiff is under challenge in this revision filed by the defendants/petitioners herein.2. A.K.V. Nityanandam, the second respondent herein filed a suit claiming damages caused to his vehicle in the fire accident, that occurred on 16.8.1994 in O.S.No. 398 of 1996. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds by filing written statement.3. After the commencement of trial and while the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined as PW1, Jayachandra, the wife of the plaintiff, thefirst respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. 2600 of 1997 to implead herself as second plaintiff in the suit claiming that she is the owner of the vehicle.4. The said application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that such an application cannot be maintained, especially, the period of limitation was over.5. However, the trial Court, after hearing the ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sreekantan and anr. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ765
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithuri, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 381 of 1997 in L.A.O.P. No. 9 of 1997 on his file. The application itself was for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of ascertaining the following facts:(1) Prepare a plan of the acquired land separately showing the areas acquired from the shares of first claimant and the second claimant with reference to the sketch filed by the claimants in Court and as per the marks made on the requisition body;(2) Estimate the value of the building bearing door No. 9/35-A and the trees standing on the acquired land from the share of the first claimant;(3) Estimate the value of the land, building bearing door No. 9/35, the compound wall and other structures falling within the acquired land from the share of the second claimant;(4) Estim...
Tag this Judgment!Thulasibalan and Another Vs. Rajesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ777
ORDER1. The appellants, the owners of the suit property let out the same to the respondent on 15.2.1991 for a period of 11 months. The lease was not renewed. Since the property was constructed within 5 years before the suit was filed, the property was not subject to the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. However, the appellants had file rent control proceedings which were dismissed on 27.7.1993 on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 will not apply. Another notice was given by the appellanton 3.9.1993 calling upon the respondent to vacate the premises on or before 31.10.1993. The respondent did not vacate and so the suit was filed.2. The respondent attacked the notice as being invalid in law and not according to the provisions to the Transfer of Property Act and also denied the averments in the plaint of wilful default in paying rents.3. Actually, two suits were filed by the appellant against two tenants. Both the suits were decreed on 10.12.1997...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Sathiyapradeep Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by S.i. of Police, Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC585; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)112
ORDER1. This revision is at the instance of the de facto complainant in Crime No.367 of 1999 on the file of Inspector of Police, Kaliyakkavilai Police Station. The crime was registered for offences under Sections 304-A, IPC and 134(A)(B) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegation that at 8.30 p.m. on 28.5.1999, the petitioner, being the driver of a Tempo van, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said rash and negligent driving, it dashed against Lakshmi, daughter of the petitioner, and caused her death. Investigation was taken up and final report was filed. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and when questioned, he pleaded guilty. The benevolent Magistrate, accepting the plea, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under section 304-A IPC. He wasalso convicted under Sections 134 (A) (B) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (Lao), Land Acquisition Ii, Tamil Nadu Housing B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ657
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Special Tahsildar (LAO) Land Acquisition-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras-35 is the appellant in the above appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No. 13 of 1993 dated, the Special Tahsildar has filed the above appeal and the claimant has also filed Cross Objection No.97 of 1997 regarding disallowed claim by the learned Subordinate Judge. Since both the appeal and cross objection arise against the same order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. An extent of 2.12 acres in S.No.767A1A. Paranur Village, Chengalpatlu District were acquired by the Government for implementation of Tamil Nadu Housing Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been published in the Gazette dated 16.8.89. After complying with the other provisions, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed a...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Thangavelu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Mad)510; [2001]250ITR492(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue has declined to permit the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998) on the ground that though there was a determination of tax in the assessment order prior to March 31, 1998, which was upheld in appeal that determination had been set aside in further appeal by the Tribunal, which had directed the Commissioner to redo the exercise with respect to one of the items and such redetermination had not been done by the Commissioner.2. It is not possible to accept the argument of counsel for the Revenue that the reason so given constituted a good reason for not extending the benefit of the Scheme. The determination of the tax payable had been made in that assessment order. The fact that the determination was to be re-examined by the Commissioner, as a result of the remand made to him by the Tribunal on an appeal which the Revenue had preferred, does not imply that there was no determin...
Tag this Judgment!Skycell Communications Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)238; [2001]251ITR53(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of providing cellular mobile telephone facility to subscribers, having been authorised to do so under the licences granted by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. They are aggrieved by the direction given by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to his subordinates to treat the payments made to them by their subscribers as coming within the definition of 'fees for technical services' in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2 of the Income-tax Act and require the firms and companies subscribing to the petitioners' network, to deduct tax at source on the payments made by them to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have averred that they have established the necessary infrastructure for the mobile communication network consisting of mobile switching centre which is an electronic exchange where switching function and call routing takes place ; visitor location register which prov...
Tag this Judgment!D. Kasturi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR532(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner entered into an agreement on March 29, 1993, for the sale of her property which agreement, inter alia, provided for delivery of possession of the property to the proposed vendee on receipt of the consideration specified in the agreement. The consideration so specified being a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was received by the assessee/ petitioner in August, 1993. She executed a power of attorney on August 17, 1993, in favour of the two partners of the firm with whom she had entered into an agreement of sale. The power of attorney was executed after clearance had been obtained for the sale of property under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The property remained with the firm, Chettinad Investments, which had taken possession from the petitioner during the year 1993-94. The firm did not choose to obtain a sale deed from the petitioner and have it registered. Instead, the partners of the firm who had obtained power of attorney proceeded to sell the portions...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »