Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
iocee Exports Ltd. Vs. Sterling Computers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]44SCL572(Mad)
1. The company petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent-company under the provisions of Sections 433(3) and (8) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the respondent-company, as seen from the memo filed by the respondent-company dated 10-8-2000, has been changed from M/s. Sterling Computers Ltd. to M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited with effect from 27-11-1997. Accordingly, the name of the respondent-company in the cause title shall stand amended substituting the name M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-company has been established for the manufacture, sale and purchase of computers and accessories and its authorised capital is Rs. 50 crores made up of 5,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and its paid up capital is Rs. 5 crores made up of 5,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in which calls in arrears are to the extent of Rs. 4,500. It is stated that the respondent-company issued a letter dated 5-11-1993 requ...
Tag this Judgment!Balan, Vs. Sri Abirameswaraswamy Temple, Rep. by Managing Trustee, Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ675
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and delivery of possession with past and future mesne profits. The suit survey No.71/1 is measuring 2 acres and 20 cents of dry land comprised in old paimash No.136 in Koothampoondi Village. The ancestors of the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the same for about 40 years and subsequently, they divided the property among themselves, under which each of them got 73 cents. Veedhai got the southern most 73 cents and after his death, the sons divided the same in themselves, in which Muthian got 38 cents and Poongan got the remaining 37 cents. Munian did not have any male issue, but only a daughter by name Muniammal. By a registered sale deed, Munian conveyed his property to Muniammal. By a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1941, she had conveyed the property to Poongan, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they were in possession and e...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Khabeer Vs. Abdul Nubeen,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ678
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Revision is filed against the order in I.A. No.17681/2001 in O.S. No.5115/2000 on the file of VII Additional Judge,City Civil Court. The respondents 1 to 7 as plaintiffs filed the suit against 145 defendants in O.S. No.5115/2001 for partition and other reliefs. Pending suit, on 28/3/2001 the 28th defendant died. The legal representatives of the said defendant were not brought on record within the time prescribed by law, and there was some delay. The plaintiffs filed three applications viz., (1) to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement, (2) to set aside the abatement and 3) to bring one son and three daughters of the deceased 28th defendant as legal representatives. These three applications were contested only by the present petitioner,viz., the 94th defendant.2. The trial Court after considering the entire matter, by an order dated 6.12.2001 allowed all the three applications, however, on terms. That is to ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Natarajan and Saraswathi Vs. K. Muthusami and C. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ731
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The only question that arises in this appeal is, whether a case of mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be accepted without pleadings or satisfactory proof regarding the place at which the deposit was so made?2. The defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants. The plaintiff/first respondent's case is that on 06.06.1984 he lent a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the first defendant/second respondent. Ex.A.1 promissory note was executed as evidence of the transaction. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are shown as witnesses in this document. 3. According to the plaint, on 08.06.1984 the title deeds to the suit property which are Ex.A.2, were handed over to the first respondent with an intention to create an equitable mortgage. On 09.06.1984 under Ex.A.3, a letter was given, confirming the deposit of title deeds on 08.06.1984 with an intention to create a mortgage. Since the second respondent did not pay either the interest or the principal and had also alienated the Ex.A.2 property in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)493; [2002]258ITR175(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the appeal was admitted on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the total income of the assessee in the light of the amendment made to Section 44AD from April 1, 1994, which is prospective and not retrospective in operation ?'2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a building contractor and his business is the construction and sale of flats. The assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 offered his income including the net profit that arose from the sale of flats. The assessee, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1991-92, had constructed 12 flats and the cost of construction of the flats as admitted by him was Rs. 16.55 lakhs. The assessee also filed a report of the appro...
Tag this Judgment!Venu Reddiar Vs. Balasubramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ741
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of remand order passed by the lower Court.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining from interfering with his peaceful possession. In the plaint the schedule property is mentioned as it covers 1 acre and 75 cents, that too within the specific boundaries. Though the suit was resisted by the respondent it is stated in the written statement that within the said specific boundaries mentioned in the plaint, the extent must be more than 1 acre and 75 cents. After considering the objections and evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. So the respondent filed appeal. However, the lower appellate Court found that the respondent has no objection to grant a decree with respect to the land measuring 1.75 acres on the south of the plaintiff's patta land. But having held so, the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to find out what are all the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Trustees of the Madras Port Trust, Rep. by Its Chairman, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT290(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In the above appeals, the Board of Trustees of the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman put in issue the judgment and decree made in the respective suits fastening the liability on the Madras Port Trust for the damages on the ground that the goods warehoused by the respective consignees/plaintiffs in the Anchor-gate bonded Warehouse of the Madras Harbour belonging to the Madras Port Trust were destroyed in a fire-accident that has taken place on 7.6.1982 due to the negligence on the part of the Port Trust, Madras. In three suits viz., C.S.Nos.496 of 1983, 288 of 1984 and 534 of 1985, the Collector of Customs has been shown as a defendant. It seems as against C.S.No.534 of 1985, no appeal has been filed. In respect of the other two suits viz., C.S.Nos.496 of 1983 and 288 of 1984, Appeal Nos.46 of 1992 and 50 of 1992 have been filed among other appeals in which the claim is made against the Port Trust only. 2. Learned single Judge of this Court thought ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi, Vs. Minor Vijayanandasundari, Rep. by Father and Next Frien ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ684
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for delivery of possession. The suit property originally belonged to one Krishnasamy Naidu and he executed a settlement deed dated 28.12.1953 in favour of Rangadoss Naidu. The settlement deed was duly accepted and acted upon. Rangadoss Naidu died some 20 years back as bachelor and his only brother and heir was Venugopal Naidu and he took possession of the property as the owner. He also did not marry. The plaintiff's father called S.D.Sami Naidu was the close friend of Venugopal Naidu and Venugopal Naidu was taking meals in the house of Sami Naidu regularly. The plaintiff's family alone were taking care of Venugopal Naidu till his death. On 17.12.1979 Venugopal Naidu executed a registered Will bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was duly executed in a sound and disposing state of mind...
Tag this Judgment!Jabamani Vs. K. Mani Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ743
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Jabamani, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration of easementary right and for mandatory injunction. The trial Court was pleased to dismiss the same. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the above second appeal.2. While the second appeal was admitted, this Court framed the substantial question of law, which is as follows:'Whether the appellate Court is correct in not having considered the contents of Ex.A17 filed before it in the light of the observation made by this Court in its order in A.A.O.No.567 of 1984 dated 29.9.1986?3. In elaboration of this substantial question of law, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would vehemently contend that the lower appellate Court has committed a grave illegality in not granting the relief sought for in the...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinammal, Vs. Suganthiri,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ764
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession with mesne profits. One Kasiappa Gounder had two wives, namely, Marathal and Kannammal @ Subbathal (1st defendant). The plaintiff is the only daughter of Marathal. Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the 1st defendant. Kasiappa Gounder died in January 1974 and Marathal died in July 1974. On 30.06.1956 Kasiappa Gounder settled the property in favour of Marathal and she was given the right to enjoy the property and thereafter, the legal heirs of Kasiappa Gounder can enjoy the property and Marathal has no right to either mortgage or sell the property. Possession of the property was also given to Marathal. She had a pre-existing right in the property for maintenance and after the passing of Hindu Succession Act, it gets enlarged and she became the absolute owner of the property. However, with a mala fide intention, K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »