Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments

K. Sadagopan Vs. K. Yamunan, Madras

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ469; 2002(2)CTC641

R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The will executed by late Sri R. Kesava Iyengar who was the doyen of the Bar of this Court and had practised in this Court for a period of nearly seventy years from 1917 to 1987 and who died at the age of 98 on 9th November 1990 after executing a will on 05.06.1968 (Ex.P.2) bequeathing his house in Triplicane to his youngest son K. Yamunan, advocate, became the subject matter of T.O.S. No.25 of 1991 in which the letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed thereto sought by the plaintiff Yamunan was opposed by one of his step brothers Sadagopan. The will is a holograph one written in a firm hand by the testator. The will is attested by two witnesses - S. Parthasarathy, the elder son-in-law of the testator, and Narayanan, brother of Parthasarathy. 2. All five daughters by the third wife, as also two of the three sons by the second wife of the testator filed affidavits consenting to the grant of letters of administration in favour of Yamunan the only...

Sri Kasi Mutt, Educational Agency of Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal Arts ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ386

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered in W.P.No.15624 of 1995 dated 14.11.1996. The writ petitioner who was unsuccessful in the writ petition is the appellant herein and the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 26.10.1996 passed in proceedings Na.Ka.No.39361/GII/95 and to direct the first respondent to approve the resolution of the management dated 11.7.1995 with effect from 15.7.1995. 3. The writ petitioner is Sri Kasi Mutt and the case of the petitioner is that it is an educational agency for two colleges, viz., Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal and Sri Kasi Vasi Swaminatha Swamigal Arts Colleges, Srivaikundam and Tirupanandal respectively. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner institution is a Saivite religious denominational minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the...

Kadri Mills (Cbe) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. These appeals are by the assessee directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 31st Aug., 2000, relating to the asst.yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. We have heard Shri V. Jagadisan, C.A. for the assessee and Shri M.Narayanan, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue and perused the records.3. The first issue in these appeals relates to the cost of replacement of machinery claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,37,315 and Rs. 2,45,78,903, respectively for the asst. yrs.1996-97 and 1997-98 as cost of replacement. The details are as under : Note : Value withdrawn in respect of 3 Draw Frames of two deliveries each Rs 1,50,000 The reasonings of the AO for disallowing the claim for the asst. yr.1996-97were that the assessee has capitalised the above replacement in its books of account; there is no replacement of is in draw frame in Karthik Mills and K.G. Mills but there is only replacement in S.K.G.Mills whereas the addition is in Kart...

Kadri Mills (Cbe) Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Chennai)38

These appeals are by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, dated 31-8-2000, relating to the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98.We have heard Shri V. Jagadisan, C.A. for the assessee and Shri M.Narayanan, Departmental Representative, for the revenue and perused the records.The first issue in these appeals relates to the cost of replacement of machinery claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,37,315 and Rs. 2,45,78,903, respectively for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 as cost of replacement. The details are as under : Value withdrawn in respect of 3 Draw Frames of two deliveries each Rs. 1,50,000.The reasonings of the assessing officer for disallowing the claim for the assessment year 1996-97 were that the assessee has capitalised the above replacement in its books of account, there is no replacement of is in draw frame in Karthik Mills and K. G Mills but there is only replacement in S.K.G. Mi...

Rajendran Gnanaolivu Rep. by Power Agent Veinu Gnanavolivu Vs. Sundar ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ0376

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The decree holder in O.S.No.7414 of 1996 on the file of IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner filed the said suit against the first respondent herein initially on the file of Original Side of this Court. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession concerning the Flat No.1-D, Marble Arch, No.4 and 5, Bishop Wallace Avenue (East), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. The said suit was filed in the year 1991 and the same was numbered as C.S.No.653 of 1991 and it was transferred to the City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.7414 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent herein contested the suit and the same was decreed after full trial on 02.08.1999. After the decree, the petitioner filed the execution petition in E.P.No.151 of 2000 on the file of IXth Assistant Judg...

Aiyeshagani Vs. Abu Hanifa,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ199

V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-1988 made in O.S.No. 14/1985 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, thereby, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff praying for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendants have no interest, right or title to the suit property, for a further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property; to direct the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and further praying to hold an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 for ascertaining the future mesne profit and for costs of the suit.2. Tracing the history of the Appeal coming to be preferred it comes to be known that it is the appellant who filed the suit on plaint averments such as that she is the elder sister of the defendants 1 and 2 and their mother is Balkisummal @ Balkis Nachial, who died on 2-3-1985; tha...

Kumar Transports, Rep. by Its Managing Partner M. Sukumar, Coimbatore ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ474

ORDER1. The prayer is for a Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the petitioner dt.30.10.2001 while considering the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the third respondent before taking a decision on the award of the handling and transport contract relating to the tender bearing No.H and T/901 (34)/01, dt.26.4.2001. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself was taken up. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is an existing contractor of the first respondent/Corporation for handling and transport at Inland Clearance Depot at Singanallur, Coimbatore. It was entrusted on an ad hoc basis after calling for tender from various transport contractors, and after considering the comparative merits of the tenders and the technical and financial bids submitted by them. The first respondent/Corporation is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking. The second respondent is the Regional Manager...

Aarupadaiveedu Medical College Run by Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variar T ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad366; (2002)2MLJ49

ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the respondent dated 07-06-2001 in PU/AS I/Acs.8/2001/10/97/521 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant affiliation for the petitioner Medical College from the academic year 2000-2001 in the light of the permission granted by the Central Government and in the light of admission of students by the Centralised agency of the Government of Pondicherry for the academic year 2000-2001 to enable the students of the petitioner institution to continue and complete the course by undertaking all examinations.2. The matrix of case culled out from the affidavit are that the petitioner is a medical college which was established in the Union Territory of Pondicherry after obtaining permission from the Government of India under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act (hereinafter referred to ...

Rajendran Gnanaolivu Represented by Power Agent, Veinu Gnanavolivu Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ376

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The decree holder in O.S. No. 7414 of 1996 on the file of IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner filed the said suit against the first respondent herein initially on the file of Original Side of this Court. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession concerning the Flat No. 1-D, Marble Arch, No. 4 and 5, Bishop Wallace Avenue (East), Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. The said suit was filed in the year 1991 and the same was numbered as C.S. No. 653 of 1991 and it was transferred to the City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S. No. 7414 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent herein contested the suit and the same was decreed after full trial on 2.8.1999. After the decree, the petitioner filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 151 of 2000 on the file of IXth Assista...

Tamil Nadu Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ704Mad

B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in a matter arising out of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The factory run by the appellant is sought to be shifted to a distance of 50 kms from the existing place. A reference is sought for on the ground that the said attempt to shift is an attempt to retrench the workmen under the guise of shifting to a far off place, and that in fact the place where the appellant's factory is being run belongs to the appellant, while the place which is chosen for shifting toat a distance of 50 km. is a rented one. There cannot be any exception to the agitation of the employees seeking a reference. But there cannot be any positive direction to the Government to refer the matter under Section 10 of the Act. We are satisfied that circumstances exist to raise a cause for industrial dispute and the Government should exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act, and we cannot pre-empt t...