Chennai Court July 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.
D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity, Represented by Its Managing Trustee Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ168
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below has filed this second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 5983 of 1982 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing door No. 90, new door No. 46, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras-17 from the defendants on receiving a sum of Rs. 3,000 as compensation for the superstructure standing on the suit property and for arrears of rent and damages.3. According to the plaintiff, one Saradambal purchased under Ex.A-1, dated 27.7.1944, a plot of land measuring 7 grounds, 2382 sq.ft., but the actual measurement is 8 grounds, 936 sq.ft. According to the plaintiff, in 1957 the said Saradambal leased out a portion of the land measuring one ground and 890 sq.ft. in the suit property, for carrying on firewood depot business to one Kannammal, who is the mother of the 1st defendant and wife of the 2nd defendant. The said Kannammal died in 1975. But the rent was sent by the...
A. Abdul Rahim Vs. Julaiga Beevi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC668; (2001)2MLJ822
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No.17 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaiakal is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the said suit for a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs and defendant are entitled to 3,7 and 14 shares in the estate of the deceased Abdul Gafoor. The learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit; hence the present appeal by the defendant.2. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is briefly stated hereunder:-The first plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Abdul Gafoor, son of Abdul Gani Rawthar. The 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and the deceased Abdul Gafoor. The defendant is the son of the said deceased Abdul Gafoor. The said Abdul Gafoor died intestate at Bombay on 9.10.80. On the death of Abdul Gafoor, as his only legal heirs, the plaintiffs and the defendant are entitled to inherit the estate ...
V.S. Shanmugam and anr. Vs. the Personal Assistant (G) to the Collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ225
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioners contend that the proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the alleged deficit Court fee on the items comprised in the estate of late Sivakami Ammal whose Will dated 13.2.1981 was the subject matter of O.P.No. 542 of 1986 in this Court, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the notice was issued several years after the grant of letters of administration. The letters were granted on 22.11.1989, while the impugned notice was issued on 14.2.1990.2. Under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Collector to whom a copy of the application had been sent under Section 55(2). Section 55(2) requires the Court to send a copy of every application for the grant of probate or letters of administration, such application being accompanied by a valuation of the estate - is, under Section 59(1) of the Act required to examine the same, or have such an enquiry made by supporting as to the correctness of the valuation. If ...
United Commercial Bank by Its Manager Vs. P. Chandrasekaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ320
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 1018 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, aggrieved by the decree relating to reduction of interest, namely, 9 per cent instead of 12.5 per cent as agreed, has filed the present appeal. In view of the fact that the subject matter of the appeal relates to rate of interest payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank for the decreed amount, it is unnecessary for this Court to refer the other details as averred in the plaint and written statement.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.3. There is no dispute that the first defendant, who has been holding a valid driving licence for driving heavy vehicles, approached the plaintiff bank in July 1981 for a loan of Rs. 2,36,000 for purchase of lorry chassis, constructing body and for purchase of other parts for the same. On 20.7.1981, the first defendant as the principal debtor and one Dhanabagyathammal, his mother, as guarantor gave an application ...
E.E., Construction Division 2 and anr. Vs. M. Gajapathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ204Mad; (2001)3MLJ71
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioners are the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively of Co-operative Department (Construction Division-2) Government of Tamil Nadu. The 1st respondent was appointed as watchman in the writ petitioners Office on February 6, 1978. His services were terminated on May 15, 1981. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent raised I.D. No. 581 of 1992 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by award dated April 19, 1994 directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent was removed on May 15, 1981. He approached the Labour Court only on August 10, 1992. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service but without back wages. Aggrieved by the above award, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The only argument advanced before this Court by the learned Government Advocate is that the 1st respondent was terminated on May 15, 1981 and he filed a petition under the Industrial Di...
Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Sankariammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ464
B. Akbar Basha Khairi, J.1. One Manickathammal was the original owner of the property involved in both the appeals. Manickathammal has a son by name Thirunavukkarasu and a daughter by name Sankari Ammal. Sankari Animal has two children, by name Valamburinadhan and minor Rathinamala. Sankari Ammal had a daughter by name Thamaraiselvi who died leaving behind her son minor Anbazhagan. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu instituted the suit in O.S.No. 390 of 1983 against Sankari Ammal seeking declaration and injunction. According to them, the suit property was the absolute property of Manickathammal and that the defendant Sankari Ammal surreptitiously obtained a gift deed from Manickathammal on 2.2.1982. Later, Manickathammal cancelled the gift deed by way of a registered document dated 10.2.1983 and on the same day, she had executed a gift deed in favour of her son Thirunavukkarasu. Manickathammal and Thirunavukkarasu sought for declaration of title to the property and also for an injunct...
Gildas Poobalrayan Vs. C.B.E. and C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC164; 2001(133)ELT273(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Petitioners are the fishermen and petitioners 2 to 6 went out for fishing off Kodayar on 10-5-1986 and they found some bundles floating in the sea and two persons were struggling for help. Petitioners 2 to 6 salvaged the goods and saved the life of the two individuals. Petitioners 2 to 6 informed the first petitioner who in turn informed the Customs officials and they took possession of the goods and the value of the goods seized by the authorities on the information furnished by the petitioners 2 to 6 was Rs. 4,62,700/-. All the petitioners claimed to the second respondent by letter dated 21-2-1988. 20% value of the goods as reward as per the Government order. There was no response to the said letter and hence the petitioners sent a reminder on 23-5-1988 and the said reminder was also not responded. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 8985/1989 for a direction to the respondents to pay 20% of the value of the goods seized as reward amount i.e. Rs. 92,540/...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Hajee Moosa Sait and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR474(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The respondent-assessee was a partnership firm consisting of four partners, out of which one partner was the private firm. The first three partners had their respective shares and they have transferred the shares to the fourth partner, that being the partnership firm. The firm was dissolved on March 30, 1982, and after dissolution of the firm, the assets and liabilities were mutually adjusted among the partners, wherein, the house property valued at Rs. 3,81,294 was taken over by the fourth partner, the private limited company. The Gift-tax Officer estimated the value of that house property as on March 31, 1981 at Rs. 11,95,000 as against its book value of Rs. 3,81,294. 60 per cent, of the difference between the estimated value and the book value of that property was treated as the amount liable for gift-tax, as it was gift to the firm by one of the partners and subjected the same to gift-tax.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Noorjahan Jamal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR287(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred concerns the entitlement of the assessee who was living with her husband abroad, but had acquired assets in India from out of monies remitted to her in India by relatives, is entitled to claim exemption in respect of property acquired from out of the monies received in India under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1982-83.2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee was not ordinarily living in a foreign country, but was frequently visiting India, and that she had not brought assets into India, nor had she acquired assets out of monies brought into India by the assessee. Having regard to those findings, the assessee clearly was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption.3. Even if the assessee be regarded as a person who ordinarily lived in a foreign country, the assets in question not having been acquired from out of monies brought into India by the assessee at the time the assessee retu...
Leather and Leather Goods Democratic Labour Union Vs. Joint Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ929Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The second respondent - Management byapplication dated January 19, 1994, sought apermission for retrenchment of 100 junior -most workmen as contemplated under Section25-N(i)(a) or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in viewof the world wide recession and consequentlack of orders for finished leather and leatherproducts, and due to the reduction in monthlyproduction and increase in overheads.2. Pursuant to the said application, no doubt, the first respondent conducted an enquiry and both sides were permitted to file their documents. While the second respondent - Management marked several documents, with regard to the annual production and stock position of the materials, the same were objected by the petitioner - union, requesting the first respondent to make an enquiry and give an opportunity to the petitioner - union to object those documents and to hold an enquiry in the manner contemplated under Section 25-N(3) of the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »