Chennai Court August 2001 Judgments
O. Syed Abbas, Proprietor, Sathyam Restaurant, No. 8, Thiru-vi-ka Road ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad64
ORDER1. The petitioner had filed five interlocutory applications pending the appeal filed by him against the dismissal of his suit for bare injunction in respect of his alleged rights in the Sathyam Theatre Complex. The five applications are, for interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the restaurant and parking stands in the theatre complex (CMP No. 986 of 2000), interim direction to restore to the petitioner, the five restaurants and parking stands with all amenities in the three theatres in Sathyam theatre complex (CMP No. 987 of 2000), interim injunction restraining the respondent from commencing, or running any canteen and parking stands collecting parking charges (CMP No. 1026 of 2000), for receiving documents (CMP No. 1027 of 2000) and finally, another petition for receiving documents (CMP No. 1028 of 2000).2. The petitioner's case is that the respondent's partnership concern leased out the restaurants and parki...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Sundaravalli Vs. T.D. Shakila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad82; (2001)3MLJ681
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order refusing to try the suit relating to Court fees as a preliminary issue.2. The respondent filed O.S. 130/98 'for redemption of mortgage and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff ... and also pay damages for the illegal use and occupation ... and for other reliefs'. The suit was filed in 1998. The petitioner herein filed her written statement denying her liability and prayed for dismissal of the suit. An additional written statement was filed by her stating that the respondent is not entitled to seek recovery of possession without paying the proper Court fees. To this, a reply statement was filed in November 1999. Thereafter, I.A. No. 457 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 2, CPC and Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act to try the additional issues No. 1 and 4 relating to Court fees as preliminary issue. This was resisted by the respondent herein. The Court below refused to try thes...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.A. Narayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR683(Mad)
C. Nagappan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law, arising out of its order for the assessment year 1974-75, for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,32,765 is not taxable but exempt under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a retired employee of Burma Shell Petroleum Company Ltd. having served that company in then Malaya. He retired from service on June 1, 1961, and was entitled to receive pension from Shell Malaya Staff PensionFund. In the assessment made for 1974-75, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1974, the Income-tax Officer included in the assessee's total income two sums, namely, (i) Rs. 6,502 representing pension, and (ii) Rs. 1,32,765 representing commutation of retirement benefits received from Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., both of which were...
Tag this Judgment!D.B.S. Properties Ltd. Vs. M.S. Meyyappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1100; (2001)3MLJ354
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Due to lack of proper and timely legal advice by the counsel concerned, the respondents 3 and 4, the contemners, are facing the contempt proceedings before this Court.2. The petitioner filed a suit in C.S. No. 943 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 5,74,83,720/- from the respondents. He also filed an Application No. 4322 of 1999 against the respondents directing them to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim. During the course of argument, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for the petitioner that there was a news article, which mentioned the proposal to construct a star hotel in the suit property. Therefore, in order to prevent the same pending disposal of the application, this Court by order dated 28-3-2000 directed the respondents to maintain 'status quo'. Subsequently, the said order was extended on 25-4-2000 and ultimately, by order dated 16-6-2000. this Court extended the same until further orders.3. When the petitioner fou...
Tag this Judgment!Kothai and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ991; (2001)3MLJ561
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. Appeal is filed as against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 979 of 1989. The claimants are the appellants in this appeal. Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition is the cross-objector.2. The claimants are wife and daughter of the deceased Krishnamurthy who died in the road accident which occurred on 28.2.1988 at about 9 p.m. On the date of the accident, when the deceased was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. TCB 3397 belonging to the respondent No. 3 from Vellore to Chennai and when the bus reached Kalathur junction road and was coming near Aavalur, the lorry bearing registration No. MDR 3532 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 1 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus and the deceased who was sitting in the fifth row of the bus sustained injury because of the dashing of the lorry with the bus and he succumbed to the injuries. It is further stat...
Tag this Judgment!Rani W/O. Late Jayaguru and Another Vs. Pushpaveni W/O. Late Veerasamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ567
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 132 of 1986 by the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram on 2.12.1987. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. 3. The plaint averments are briefly as follows. The plaintiffs are sisters. The first defendant is their mother and defendants 2 and 3 are their brothers. Veerasamy Udayar is plaintiffs' father. The joint family consisting of Veerasamy and defendants 2 and 3 owned extensive ancestral properties. From the income there from, the family purchased various other properties. Veerasamy was the Kartha of the family. He died intestate in or about 1962. At that time, the plaintiffs were minors. After Veerasamy's death, seconddefendant, as the eldest male member, was managing the entire properties. In the properties, after Veerasamy's death, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to the following shares. 1st plaintiff 1/15. 2nd plaintiff 1/15. 1st defendant 1/15. 2nd defendant 6/15. 3rd defendant 6/15. D...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Textiles Rep. by Its Proprietor S. Baskaran Vs. Mahavir Fabrics R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ295
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No. 111 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant in the second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein represented by its partner for recovery of Rs. 6,419.96 being the balance amount due by the defendant/appellant towards credit purchase of cloth, subsequent interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant purchased textile goods between 7.5.1981 and 21.8.1981 for a total value of Rs. 18,208.96 on credit, that they were credit sales and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant had to pay interest at 18% per annum if the credit bill was not discharged within 30 days from the date of purchase, that the defendant had paid Rs. 11,789 on various dates towards the purchases, but, failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,419.96 after 8.12.1981, that a lawyer's notice was issued and the suit came to be filed.3. The defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia t...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswamy and Four ors. Vs. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, by Its Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ500
ORDER1. Defendants 4, 6, 12, 27 and 36 in O.S.No.207 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, are the revision petitioners. 2. The civil revision petition itself has been filed against the dismissal of their application in I.A.No.37 of 1997 for condoning the delay of 797 days in filing the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree, dt. 1.9.1994, passed against them. 3. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein representing Krishna Mandiram Trust, Karur, as its Trustees against the revision petitioners and 37 others for recovery of possession, for declaration of their right, for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent/State and its Officers and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, for recovery of possession of portions of the suit property from defendants 2 to 25, and for mesne profits from the date of the suit till possession to be determined un...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Gomathi Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ602
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S.No.403 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif,Ambasamuthiram, are the appellants in the second appeal.2. The respondent herein represented by its Managing Partner filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,000 with interest on the following averments:As per Rule 46 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, once in five years the electrical installations in Industrial Undertakings had to be inspected and tested; as per G.O.Ms.No.1437, dt.18.5.1963 inspection charges were fixed; in view of the increase in the pay of the employees and other over-heads, the Chief Electrical Inspector requested the Government to revise the rates; as per G.O.Ms.No.1172, dt.26.7.1975, the rates were fixed; the new rates were 7 to 9 times higher than the previous rates; inspection would take place for a single day; the revised rates were unjust and beyond all proposition; they had no relationship to the services rendered; M/s. Bojraj Textile Mills Ltd., of Theni, challenged the r...
Tag this Judgment!J. Engineering Company Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Empl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ653Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent in No. 8.3 (TN)/MD/2391/ENF-Mdu/95 dated September 14, 1995.2. The petitioner, a partnership firm is carrying on business of trading in domestic appliances. At all material times it is stated that the petitioner has employed less than 15 employees and at present there are only 13 employees employed by the petitioner firm. The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, applies to an establishment employing 20 or more persons. The said enactment has no application to the petitioner firm as the petitioner has employed less than 20 employees.3. In terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 if an application is made to Central Provident Fund Commissioner that the employer and a majority of employees with respect to an establishment agree that the provisions of the Act shall be made applicable to such establishment, the Central Provident C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »