Chennai Court June 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Annamalai Pillai and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ231
ORDER1. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed the above second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.1657 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam for declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction and in alternative for possession of the suit property.2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was given by Sivalingam in favour of his widowed daughter Thangammal for her maintenance. She executed a Will under Ex.A3 dated 29.11.75 in favour of the plaintiff. Thangammal died. According to the plaintiff, the said Sivalingam had executed a settlement deed under Ex.A1, dated 23.2.1927 in favour of the said Thangammal, his widowed daughter for her maintenance. On that basis, the plaintiff has come forward with a plea that Thangammal's right is enlarged and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to absolute right in the property.3. The defendants contested the suit contending inter-alia that Thangammal cannot claim any absolute right on the basis of the se...
The Salem Municipal Council by Its Commissioner, Salem Municipality, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ84
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendant before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal.2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.265 of 1977, for a decree that the order dated 31.3.1977 has to be declared as illegal and arbitrary, and the defendants should be prevented from enforcing the same.3. The plaintiffs/respondents are the owners of the premises bearing Door No. 40-A1/1146, New Door No.119, Cherry Road, Salem, which has been used as a lodging house. The said building was assessed to property tax at the rate of Rs.607.31 per half year. Since the plaintiffs put up II floor, the appellant/defendant issued a notice proposing to enhance the tax at the rate of Rs.1214.50 per half year. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.384 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem questioning the validity of thesame. Ultimately, the said proposal was held as void and unenforceable by t...
Kamala Solvent Vs. Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd., Manipal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad440
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to pass an order of injunction, restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with the proposed arbitration proceedings on 14-5-2001 or any other date subsequent thereto at Udipi pending disposal of the application. 2. It is the case of the applicant herein that the resondents 1 & 2 herein have leased out some machineries under agreement dated 30-12-95 to the applicant herein. In the said agreement under Clause 32 arbitration is provided. One Mr. B.I. Sharma the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as arbitrator who has sent notice to the parties including the applicant herein. According to the applicant, the respondents 1 and 2 had unilaterally chosen to appoint the arbitrator of their choice which is illegal and arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is the case of the applicant that as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, both the parties ha...
Ve. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. Ar. Ramasamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ227
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. All the above three civil revision petitions are directed against the fair and decretal orders respectively dated 23.3.2001, 21.3.2001 and 21.3.2001 respectively made in I.A.No. 39 of 2001, I.A.No. 127 of 2001 and I.A.No. 128 of 2001 all in O.S.No. 20 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Devakkottai. All the above Interlocutory Applications have been filed by one and the same petitioner viz, the third defendant in the suit, who is none other than the petitioner in all the above civil revision petitions.2. For the sake of easy reference, C.R.P.Nos. 1657, 1658 and 1659 of 2001 are respectively referred to hereinafter as the first, second and third revision petitions respectively.3. So far as the first revision petition above is concerned, the petitioner herein filed a petition in I.A.No. 39 of 2001 in O.S.No. 20 of 1997 before the trial Court praying to appoint a new Commissioner to enquiry into the charge statement filed by the plaintiff and the objection fil...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT278(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 7-3-2000, passed in W.P. No. 14851/2000 whereby the learned single Judge has directed the appellants-Department to pay the interest on the pre-deposit amount, at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the order of CEGAT i.e. 2-9-1999 till actual payment made on 14-9-2000.2. In the instant case, against the demand made by the appellants-Department, the respondent-Company has filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'). The 'CEGAT' directed the respondent-Company to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. The respondent-Company has also paid the said amount. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favour of the respondent-Company on 2-9-1999 and the demand was set aside. In spite of the repeated requests made by the respondent-Company, the pre-deposit amount was not repaid by the Department. Therefore, the respondent-Company ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.C. Nanjappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR588(Mad)
ORDERSale of property some years after its assessmentCatch Note:Commissioner revised value of assessee's property some years after its wealth-tax assessment was concluded--Tribunal rejected Commissioner's order--Justified--The mere fact that property fetched higher value on its sale than what was assessed in its earlier assessment year, cannot become basis for revision under section 25(2)--Consequently assessment cannot be revised based on higher sale value.Ratio:Value of property not to be subjected to revision under section 25(2) on basis of its sale value if assessed at lower value, in earlier assessment year.Held:The fact that the property fetched a higher value when it was sold some years after the assessment for the wealth-tax had been made, is no reason at all to reopen the concluded assessment, and to substitute a price which was secured years. later, as the value of the property in the earlier period. The wealth-tax is payable on the net wealth for the relevant assessment year...
Kausalya Impex Vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT66(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner against the very same respondents. W.P. No. 1285 of 2001 is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to order provisional release of the imported goods detained at Central Warehousing Corporation, Coimbatore relating to assessed Bill of Entry No. III, dated 4-10-2000 and 654 rolls of PU sheets detained at the petitioner's godown in Bhiwandi, Mumbai.2. W.P. No. 1286 of 2001 is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the 5th respondent for re-export of 8 containers arrived at Cochin Port on 14-10-2000 from Korea at the cost of the petitioner.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The petitioner imported during the last one year 35 consignments of Polyurethane (PU) sheets and Poly Vinyl Chloride (PV) sheets used as foot wear insoles through Cochin Port and the containers were transshipped from Cochin Port to Inland Conta...
G. Velavan Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad53
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner was operating a stagecarriage holding a transport permit for his route bus bearing Registration No. TN 28/ 1490 for the route Harur to Dharmapuri (Via) Gopinathampatti Junction Road, Thenkaraikottai, Ramayanalli, Sinthalapadi, Kadathur and Odasalpatti Junction Road. Another vehicle, which is a spare bus bearing Registration No. TDM 1995, is covered by a spare bus permit, which is intended to maintain substitute service in place of the route bus during breakdowns and also to perform service to meet the special needs.3. Tax in respect of the spare bus was paid for the quarter ending 31-3-1994. In order to rebuild the body of the spare bus, the petitioner filed a stoppage report to the respondent on 1-3-1994, Intimating that the spare bus will be stopped for repair from 1-3-1994 to 20-3-1994 with an initial fee of Rs. 25/- for stoppage of service for the said period. As the vehicle could not be repaired by 20-3-1994, the petitioner submitt...
Sampathlakshmi and ors. Vs. E.A. Murthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad355
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for issue of a probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of E. Ponnambal wife of late Dr. A. Ekambaram, executed at Madras on 19-11-1990 in the presence of the witnesses. 2. The plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that E. Ponnambal was ordinarily residing at No. 54, IV Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Madras and she died at Sivaram Nursing Home, Adyer, Madras. She left behind her one son viz. E.A. Murthy and three daughters viz. Sampathlakshmi, Vatsala and Ahalya as legal heirs. They are only entitled to the assets of the deceased under the Will. The jewels have been divided and given to the grand children. The last Will and Testament of the deceased was duly executed by her at Madras on 19-11-1990 in the presence of the witnesses and it has been registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office at Virugambakkam. Plaintiffs are the executors appointed under the Will. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement alleging t...
Sri Krishna Mahal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR283(Mad)
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge, dated March 9, 2001, and made in W. P. No. 17340 of 2000 (see : [2001]250ITR333(Mad) ) :It is alleged that the respondent issued a notice dated September 8, 2000, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the appellant, intimating that a part of income assessable for the year 1999-2000 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, and calling upon the appellant to file a return in the prescribed form for that assessment year. To quash the same the appellant filed the writ petition.The learned single judge, on consideration observed that the notice issued, was not in any way illegal and dismissed the writ petition. Against that, this writ appeal has been filed.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials onrecord. The appellant has not been able to satisfy that there is any infirmity inthe notice or want of jurisdiction. On consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »