Chennai Court March 2001 Judgments
Sayarakshai Kattalai and Arthajama Kattalai Attached to Arulmigu Kayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ73
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff, who is unsuccessful before the trial Court, is the appellant in this appeal. Pending the suit the first defendant died and the third defendant had been impleaded as his legal heir. This appeal which was originally dismissed for non-prosecution but restored, came up for hearing.2. Heard Mr. R.N. Kothandaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Viswanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. For convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.3. The plaintiff instituted the suit praying for a declaration that the Land Building and premises described in the suit 'A' Schedule belong absolutely to Sayarakshai Kattalai of Neeladayakshiamman Temple and uphold its title thereof, direct the 2nd defendant or defendants to deliver possession of the 'A' schedule premises, direct the 2nd defendant or defendants to pay past and future mesne profits, restrain the defendants from taking possession o...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jamuna Bai Vs. M.A. Anusuya and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad392; (2001)2MLJ355
ORDER1. This is the story of a Jinxed deed. The events of the case makes one wonder if the deed carried the curse of death with it.2. One Varadaiya Chetty, owner of the suit property executed a deed on 5.6.1970. He had two wives. Through the first wife, he had a daughter called Lakshmi Kantha. The respondent 2 to 4 are the children of the said Lakshmi Kantha. Through the second wife, Varadaiya Chetty had a son Arunachalam whose wife is the first respondent and a daughter who is the appellant herein. The appellant had a son called Ajit Kumar, now deceased. Jamuna Bai filed two suits. One was, O.S.No.2986 of 1986, which was filed for return of original documents relating to the suit property and certain movables being National Savings Certificate. In this suit, Varadaiya Chetty alone was made as defendant. Subsequently, the other respondents were brought on record as his LRs after the death of Varadaiya Chetty. The other suit was O.S.No.2987 of 1956 which was for declaration and recovery...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopalan Vs. Alagammal Achi (Died) and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ259
ORDER1. The seventh defendant in O.S.No.511 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukoitai is the appellant herein. The first respondent who died pending the second appeal filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit properly. The case of the deceased first respondent is that she is the widow of one Nagapa Chettiar, who is the owner of the property. The respondents 2 to 5 are her sons. Her husband died in the year 1952, leaving herself and the respondents 2 to 5 as legal representatives. An insolvency proceedings was initiated against the third defendant in the suit the fourth respondent herein in I.P.No.3 of 1977. The fourth respondent was adjudged as an insolvent and his 1/4 share in the suit property brought to sale. The appellant herein/7th defendant in the suit purchased his share and the sale certificate had been issued on 18.8.80. Since the first respondent is entitled for 1/5th share, the sale of 1/4th share of the fourth responde...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N. Kannan Vs. Ito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR626(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Since the issue involved in all these petitions is one and the same, a common order is passed in all these petitions.The Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, Tambaram, Chennai, has filed a complaint against Dr. Vishwar Banu and Dr. N. Kannan, the petitioner herein for the offences under sections 276C(2), 278 read with section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and under sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Seeking to quash the above proceedings, the petitioner/the second accused, Dr. N. Karnnan, has filed the above petitions.The following is the contention claiming that the proceedings as against the petitioner are liable to be quashed : .'The petitioner being a doctor is alleged to have issued a false certificate in favour of the first accused in order to abet the offence committed by the first accused for making an attempt to evade tax by giving false medical certificate. This allegation contained in the complaint would not constitute an offence, beca...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. R. M. Soma Sundaram (Huf) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR338(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question requiring our consideration is as to whether the contingent interest of the beneficiary can be regarded as an asset for the purpose of levy of wealth-tax. The assessment years are 1976-77 to 1982-83. The assessees had claimed that, such interest was not taxable, and that in the event of it being considered capable of being brought to tax, the same will have to be valued in accordance with the mode of valuation set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust : [1977]108ITR555(SC) .The fact that the assessees have a contingent interest in the trust properties, which are coffee estates is not in dispute. It is not also in dispute that the interest of a beneficiary in the trust property can be subjected to tax. The Supreme Court in the case of the Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust (supra) has observed that :'The beneficiary would always be assessable in respect of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Sky Cell Communication Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas832(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 08-12.2000 made on several applications for injunctions and interim directions filed by plaintiffs in C.S. Nos. 930 and 931 of 2000 on the original side of this court concerning the affairs of a cellular mobile telephone company, which holds a licence for providing such service in Tamil Nadu.2. Sky Cell Communications Limited (Sky Cell) was incorporated initially as a private company at Delhi on 03.03.1992 with the main object of owning and operating cellular mobile telephone system in India. On 27.10.1995, the word 'private' was deleted from its name, as by then, the company had become a public company under Section 43A of the Companies Act. The registered office of the company was later shifted to Chennai.3. A joint venture agreement (JVA) was entered into on 12.08.1992 among Sky Cell, Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Crompton), Bellsouth International (Asia/Pacific) Inc., Atlanta, USA, (Bellsouth) Millicom Inter...
Tag this Judgment!S and S Industrial and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas624(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition is placed before me as per the orders of the Chief Justice, dated 5-2-2001.2. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration to declare that no proceedings for the recovery of money or non-repayment of trade or other dues and no order for payment or for enforcement of any security or guarantee against the petitioner's company and itsdirectors and officers shall lie without the prior consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Companies Act') on 12-10-1990. The company's authorised share capital is Rs. 15 crores divided into 1.5 crore equity shares of Rs. 10 each. There is no dispute that the company has received public deposits and has been paying interest thereon. It is fairly stated that the total outstanding deposit as on 31-10-2000 was Rs. 931...
Tag this Judgment!David Pon Pandian and ors. Vs. State Through the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)344; 2002(24)PTC377(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. These petitions coming on for hearing on Friday twenty Second day of December 2000 upon perusing the petition and the Memo Grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.D. Jagdish Chandra Advocate for the petitioners in all petitions and of Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) on behalf of the respondent and having Stoodover for Consideration till this day the Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has arisen in this way :- M/s. A.V.M, Productions Limited, Madras, produced a Tamil Feature film titled 'Sethupathi I.P.S.' They took 83 Prints of the picture. To avoid video piracy they had made special marks in each of the prints in certain frames of the film. Later, it came to light that the same film was being Screened in Television in Ambur and the Ambur Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No. 36 of 1994 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film in T.V. Screen thro...
Tag this Judgment!Alagu Murugesan and ors. Vs. A. Thanga Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3450
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The petitioners who stand charged as accused in P.R.C. No. 17 of 1994 have comeforward to quash the proceedings in S. C. No. 120 of 1996 pending on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Madurai.2. The facts leading to the institution of the Criminal Original Petition briefly stated are as under :- There had been dispute between the petitioners and one Thangapandian the respondent and his party. An occurrence took place on 5-2-1994. The petitioners and other preferred a complaint to the police against Thangapandian and others alleging that they have committed offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341. 324, 354, 307 and 506(ii), I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint, the Elumalai Police registered a crime in Crime No. 31 of 1994 under the above said provisions of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day, the respondent Thangapandian preferred a complaint against the petitioners herein which was also received by the same police. They registered a crime in Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugadurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary and Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ202
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Pursuant to the requisition made by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (M.M.D.A.) for the acquisition of an extent of 33.16 acres of wet lands (13.42.0 hectares) in S.No.702/1, etc., in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act') in G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.6.1991. The said notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II-Section 2 (Supplement), dated 26.6.1991, at pages 12 to 14. The notification was also published in the Tamil dailies 'Makkal Kural' and 'Malai Malar', dated 26.6.1991, and in the locality on 4.7.1991 and 5.7.1991. The notice calling on the appellants to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act was duly served and the appellants appeared for the enquiry on vario...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »