Chennai Court June 2001 Judgments
Soundara Rajes and 3 Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ159
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.357 of 1981 have filed these Second Appeals having aggrieved by the common judgments and decrees of the courts below.2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.357 of 1981, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem seeking for a declaration declaring that the 'CD' Road as shown in the plaint plan in Mohanaad Peak Estate is a private road belonging to the plaintiffs and for injunction reslraining the defendants from taking proceedings under Sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also exercising jurisdiction over the 'CD' Road.3. According to the plaintiffs, as per the final decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, the Mohanaad Peak Estate belongs to the plaintiffs exclusively. The same was divided into four equal parts and there are number of private roads running on the said estate. A total extent of 6 acres 52 cents is the area covered by the said private roads. The Government loop road goes from Semmanatham vill...
Tag this Judgment!K. Pattabiraman Vs. K. Banumathi and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ6
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.57 of 1996 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.592 of 2000 dated 12.07.2000, has filed the above revision.2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed civil suit, in O.S.No. 57 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam for partition and separate, possession. The first respondent herein is the brother of the petitioner's wife and respondents 2 to 4 are his children. The petitioner herein has filed a written statement and resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit items had already been apportioned and there is no necessary for the suit. The plaintiffs have let in evidence. When the petitioner herein - first defendant was in the witness box filed a document purported to be a partition deed dated 29.8.1978, this was objected by the plaintiffs that it is an unregistered document and could not be admitted. It is the case of the petitioner that thedocument could not be registered, since it...
Tag this Judgment!Sirajudeen (Died) and 7 Others Vs. Sethu Chettiar and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ107
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.70 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, aggrieved by the decree dated 8.12.88, has preferred the above appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 6 filed the said suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to them and the second defendant, permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from in any way interfering with possession of plaintiffs and second defendant. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit as prayed for, hence the first defendant alone has filed the present appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs is briefly stated hereunder;- The suit property belongs to the plaintiffs by ancestral right. It was purchased by great grand father of the first plaintiff, one Palani Chettiar under deed dated 22.9.1887 for a sum of Rs.67. After taking delivery, the said Palani Chettiar was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On the death of the said Palani Chettiar, his sons a...
Tag this Judgment!Viswapriya Finance Services and Securities Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas160(Mad)
Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, having his office at Chennai, filed a private complaint against Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. and its six named directors for the offences under Sections 58A(2)(b) and 58A(7)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). This, was taken on file in E.O.C.C. No. 262 of 1997 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Egmore, Chennai. On taking cognizance of the above offences, the trial Court issued summons to the company and its directors. On receipt of the same, the petitioners have filed the present application before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the above complaint.2. The short facts which led to the filing of this petition are given under :'(a) Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. (A1) having the managing director and chairman (A2) and the directors (A3 to A6) which was originally incorporated...
Tag this Judgment!H.G. Oomor Sait and Another Vs. O. Aslam Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ672
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, in T.A.No.295 of 2000 in O.S.No.243 of 1999. This saidapplication in I.A.No.295 of 2000 was filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to direct the dispute raised by the plaintiff to arbitration and refer the parties to such arbitration.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:for convenience, the parties are described as plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 had constituted a partnership (un-registered). While the second defendant is the father, the plaintiff and the third defendant are brothers being the sons of the second defendant. The partnership related to the business which they were running under the name and Style 'M/s English Boot House', dealing with foot wears and other allied product. While the father was entitled to a share o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vummidi Bangaru Chetty (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR332(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the filigree silver and silverware held by the assessee as stock-in-trade is not includible in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The assessment is for the years 1984-85 to 1988-89. During the said period the silverware held by the assessee as stock-in-trade was assessable. In fact the said view is strengthened by the decision of this court in the case of CWT v. Varadharaja Theatres P. Ltd. : [2001]250ITR523(Mad) , wherein it was held that the business assets even such as cinema building were includible in the net wealth of the assessee.3. The principles laid down in the above decision are applicable to the case on hand and, therefore, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Gounder Vs. Chinnapaiya Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad1
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 904 of 1980 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the Judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 133 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 14-8-1997.2. The case in brief is as follows :--The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The suit properties originally belonged to one Manickam Ammal and she is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff and the defendant. She executed a registered settlement deed dated 21-5-1978 in favour of the plaintiff, who accepted the same and took possessions, but the original settlement deed was taken away by the defendant with the active assistance of his father. Now, the defendant openly saying in the village that he has got right over the property. In fact, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant, but he refused to receive t...
Tag this Judgment!Mym Exporters Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT561(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 16950 of 1992, M/s. MYM Exporters, a proprietary concern carrying on business at Bombay has filed this writ petition praying this Court to issue appropriate writ or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for records from Respondent No. 5 relating to File No. 88/362/86 SIB/148/85 quash the order dated 29-6-1986 despatched on 12-12-1986, marked ANNEXURE 'L' and direct the Respondent No. 5 to release the cargo covering the Bills of Entry (i) I.M. No. 1148/85 L.No. 87/-, dated 6-1-1986 and (ii) I.M. No. 23/86 with such further or other order or orders as this Honourable Court might deem fit.2. The very same writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 16951 of 1992 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for records in file No. 9/82/Hq/88-89 ECA. I/3131/3937/2988 from Respondent No. 3 herein and quash the adjudication order dated 23rd September, 1991/3-8-1992 ANNEXURE 'S' passed by the Respondent No. 3 with such further or other ord...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Sugumaran Vs. Ragini Alias Usha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ257
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff who has not succeeded in obtaining an interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from disturbing his peaceful possession. According to the appellant, he was a tenant in respect of 'A' schedule A property under an agreement dated 6.7.1981 from one Baalamirtham ('B'). She is the mother of the 1st respondent. The appellant was paying an advance of Rs. 1,000. The lease deed permitted him to put up superstructure and the appellant also did so. Thereafter, in a family arrangement of 'B' and her family members, this property was allotted to the 1st respondent. The rent was paid to 'B' alone who received it. An un-registered lease deed was prepared in 1984, but since the signature of the 1st respondent was not obtained, the appellant continued to pay the rent to 'B'. On 19.4.1989, 'B' offered the 'A' schedule property for sale. The sale consideration was also fixed. An agreement of sale was prepared on stamp paper and shown ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ponds India Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)235; [2002]253ITR686(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. The assessee-company was incorporated on 5-5-1977, for the purpose of taking over the business which was being run by an. American company, Chesebrough Ponds Inc. The American company had been carrying on business in India by manufacturing and marketing cosmetic products. That same business was continued by the assessee with the aid of plant and machinery that had been owned by the American company and additions made thereto by the Indian company. The products manufactured remained the same during the assessment year 1980-81.In respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement, publicity and sales Promotion the assessee claimed exemption under section 37(3D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it had set up an industrial undertaking. That claim though initially negatived by the assessing officer, was accepted by the Commissioner, whose decision was affirmed in appeal. The revenue, is now before us questioning the correctness of the vi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »