Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Vasantha Vs. Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad214
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Vasantha, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against her husband, Chandran, the respondent/defendant claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,750/- per month from the date of suit till her death, for the past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 74,250/-, for return of 13 sovereign jewels or its value at the rate of Rs. 39,000/-, for creating charge over the house property, namely, the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of suit, i.e. 1-7-1999 to the appellant and also directed the defendant to pay Rs. 39,000/- being the value of 13 sovereign jewels given as seedhana jewels for the marriage. The trial Court also created charge over the house property and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to alienate the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit as against...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramasamy Gurukal Vs. K.C. Mahalinga Gurukal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ281
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a case where the aged father-in-law had been dragged to the Court of law by the son-in-law.2. Son-in-law, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the basis of the suit promissory note dated 2-1-1994 against his father-in-law, the defendant.3. The suit was contested by the defendant by stating that he received only the lesser amount and the same was also discharged through compromise made out of the Court.4. Accepting the case of the defendant, the trial Court dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court was not inclined to place reliance on the defence exhibits and however the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to the defendant on the date of execution of pro-note.5. Challenging the concurrent judgments, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, on the strength of the decisions rend...
Tag this Judgment!Pavithra, Rep. by Power Agent S. Rajkumar Kalingarayar Vs. Rahul Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ182
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in HMOP No. 193 of 2002 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore. The respondent/husband has filed the above HMOP under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of the marriage solemnised on 17-05-2000.2. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner herein stayed with her parents, later she left India to pursue her studies in United States of America. In the meanwhile, she has executed a registered power of attorney dated 14-12-2001 in favour of her father, who is representing this case. The respondent/husband has filed HMOP after she has left India. The court below issued summons to the petitioner herein directing her to appear before the court on 20-05-2002, which was received by her mother. On 20-05-2002, the petitioner's father filed an application under Order III Rule 2 and Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to defend the HMOP NO. 193 of 2002 on behalf of the petitioner. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Manoharadhas Vs. C. Arumughaperumal Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC539
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil, for a direction to the first defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after directing the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9,400 and directing the defendant to hand over possession of plaint property to the plaintiff. The trial court granted a decree directing the first defendant to execute a sale deed. On appeal filed by the appellant/first defendant, the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil granted a decree against defendants 1 and 2 to execute a sale deed and hand over possession of the suit property, against which, this second appeal is preferred.2. The necessary facts for the purpose of this Second Appeal are as follows :-The first defendant is the owner of the suit property. On 14.5.1983, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Wonderweld Electrodes (Private) Ltd. Rep. by Director Suryakant C. Pat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ386; 2003(26)PTC37(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since all these appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.2. All these appeals arise out of a common order in I.A. Nos. 23 to 25 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2 of 1999 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. By the impugned common order dated 17.03.1999, the learned Additional District Judge had granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exclusive rights of the petitioner in I.A. No. 23 of 1999, restraining the defendants 2 to 6 from passing off their goods bearing the trade mark SUN-ARC in I.A. No. 24 of 1999 and restraining the defendants from making any transfers or assignments or encumbrance in respect of the trade mark SUNARC or emblem in I.A. No. 25 of 1999. The learned Additional District Judge has granted these interim orders until the disposal of the suit or the expiry of...
Tag this Judgment!Pasumpon Gandhi Vs. Shirely Gandhi, E/O. Pasumpon Gandhi and Rahamadul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)208; I(2003)DMC161
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Petitioner in F.C.O.P. No. 856 of 92 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge (Additional Family Court), Madras, dismissing his petition filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to dissolve the marriage performed between him and the first respondent herein, has filed the above appeal. He filed the said petition before the Family Court under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. It is contended before the Family Court that the marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnized on 25-01-1978 according to Christian rites. Thereafter they lived together till April, 1992. Alleging that the first respondent had committed adultery with the second respondent, he prayed for divorce. Before the Family Court, the petitioner-husband was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5. In spite of the fact that the first respondent herein, wife did not file c...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Santhakula Sowmynarayana, Kavaraya Podu Nithi Through Its Trustee, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ309
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the licence issued to the respondents 4 and 5 to locate IMFL shop at Door No. 1-B, Gandhi Road, Srirangam.2. On 7.1.1997 rule nisi was issued. The respondents have been served. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the second respondent has filed a counter. On behalf of the respondents 4 a separate counter has been filed. Other respondents have not filed a counter. With the consent of counsel appearing for either side, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.3. Heard Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Velumani, Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P. Raghunanathan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a trust governed by the Scheme framed in O.A. No. 336 of 1939 in the year 1941 by the then Hindu Religious and Char...
Tag this Judgment!Pasumpon Gandhi Vs. Shirely Gandhi E/O Pasumpon Gandhi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ62
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Petitioner in F.C.O.P.No. 856 of 92 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge (Additional Family Court), Madras, dismissing his petition filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to dissolve the marriage performed between him and the first respondent herein, has filed the above appeal. He filed the said petition before the Family Court under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. It is contended before the Family Court that the marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnized on 25.01.1978 according to Christian rites. Thereafter they lived together till April, 1992. Alleging that the first respondent had committed adultery with the second respondent, he prayed for divorce. Before the Family Court, the petitioner-husband was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5. In spite of the fact that the first respondent herein, wife did not fi...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappan, Vs. Vijayalakshmi and Ramasamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ291
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants herein.2. Vijayalakshmi, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. However, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal by the defendants 2 to 4.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:'Kaliappan, the second defendant is the son of Ramasamy Gounder, the first defendant. Chinna Gounder, the father of the first defendant was allotted with 1.71 3/4 acre in the partition among his brothers in the year 1946. In 1959, there was a partition between the said Chinna Gounder and his son, the first defendant. The said property measuring 1.71 3/4 acre was allotted to the first defendant. From the date of partition, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The house situated on the western side of the property was settled in favour of Chinna Gounder by the first defendant...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.C.C. Holdings
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)531
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question is referred to this Court for our opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had sufficient materials to hold that the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise from the method of payment present in the case of assessee?'2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are,that the assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business of importing timber and dealing in wholesale. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1990-91, the assessing officer denied the claim for deduction of interest payment of Rs.3,22,438/- to foreign banker from the business income under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the required tax was not deducted at source under Chapter XVII B of the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the payment of interest in a sum of Rs.1,06,2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »