Chennai Court June 2002 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.
Janaki Ammal, Vs. S.S. Subramanian,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ4
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Tmt. Janaki Ammal and others, the appellants herein, are the defendants 4 to 11 in the suit. Having lost before both the Courts below, they have filed the second appeal.2.S.S. Subramanian, the first respondent herein filed the suit in the year 1981 for redemption of Othi and for mesne profits against one Kandasamy and the appellants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties originally belonged to one Ramasamy who usufructuarily mortgaged the properties in favour of one Chellappa Mavali in 1962 and the said mortgagee assigned the said mortgage in favour of Kandasamy Chettiar, the first defendant. These properties were brought for sale in a suit filed against Ramasamy through the execution proceedings in the year 1966 and the same was purchased by one Thirumalai Chettiar in Court auction. After the death of Thirumalai Chettiar, the defendants 2 and 3, the heirs of Thirumalai Chettiar sold the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint...
P.M. Mani Vs. P.S. Mohankumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad402
M. Chockalingam, J.1. T.O.S. No. 36 of 1987 : This suit is filed for issue of a probate in respect of a Will dated 6-5-1968 executed by Madurai Muthu Mudaliar.2. C.S. No. 1620 of 1993 :This suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd shares of the plaint schedule mentioned properties i.e. each 1/6 share, for a direction to the second defendant to furnish accounts for the management of the suit properties from 10-7-1971, for a direction to the defendants to pay mesne profits, for allotment of plaintiffs* share by dividing the suit properties into metes and bounds, and for costs.3. The plaint averments in TOS 36/87 are as follows :The father of the plaintiff by name Madurai Muthu Mudaliar was ordinarily residing at No. 29 (Now 14) Subramania Mudali Street, Madras 7, and he died on 10-7-91. At the time of his death, he left behind him the following legal heirs viz. (1) Karpagam Ammal (wife); (2) P. M. Selvasigamani (son); (3) P. M. Mani (son); (4) P. M. Kamal...
Geetha Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR178(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The assessee is a hotel. The question referred to us as per learned senior counsel is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim for extra shift allowance in respect of the plant and machinery used in the lodging section ?' 2. The Tribunal had taken a view that the benefit of the allowance could not be given to the hotel as the hotel could not be said to be working in shifts. As per the Tribunal's order, the said advantage could be given to the hotels only under sub-item (iii) and not additionally under sub-item (iv). Learned senior counsel pointed out that the view of the Tribunal is patently erroneous and has been so viewed by the Supreme Court in the decision in East India Hotels Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]223ITR1(SC) . Learned counsel pointed out the following paragraph from the said decision (page 4) ; 'The contention of the Revenue is that an approved hotel--(the appellant is admittedl...
Jesuraj M. and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ324Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. Both the Writ Appeals are directed against the order in W.P.No.2589 of 1988 dated July 19, 1991.2. The parties are referred to in the judgment as shown in the cause title in W.A. No. 1082 of 1991.3. The following are the brief facts, leading to the filing of the present writ appeals.The second respondent/Management of Soundararaja Spinning Mills, Nedungadu, Karaikkal came into existence during the year 1966. Altogether, 375 persons were employed] in the Mill. On August 7, 1978 a settlement was entered under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Management with the Union of I.N.T.U.C., which is the only Union; representing the employees at that time. The said settlement was for a period of five years from the date of the settlement. After the said settlement was entered yet another Union affiliated to C.I.T.U., came into existence, representing some of the employees of the Mill. According to the settlement dated Aug...
Marshall Sons and Company (India) Ltd. Vs. the Fertilisers and Chemica ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)4CompLJ122(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 434 of 2001 is the appellant herein. The said suit was laid for recovery of certain amount. The first respondent herein, who is the first defendant in the said suit, took out two applications in Application Nos. 5660 and 5661 of 2001 to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of the two purchase orders both dated 18.7.1996 and for stay of the suit respectively. The learned Judge, by an order dated 12.3.2002, allowed both the applications finding that the purchase orders referred to by the first respondent herein contemplate arbitration clause and, as such, the dispute has to be referred to the arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Clause 25 of the purchase order does not contemplate the arbitration clause. It is only a reference to the Chairman and managing director of FACT regarding the factual dispute, and for a fact finding enquiry. Hence...
M. Reethammal and Tamil Nadu Association of Non-teaching Staff of Aide ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ768
D. Murugesan, J. 1. Both the above appeals arise out of a common order of the learned single Judge dated 6.1.92 made in W.P.Nos.11762 of 1989 and 6693 of 1990. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.11762 of 1989 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.6693 of 1990, filed by the management of the minority institution, has filed the present writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in W.A.No.972 of 1992.2. In both the writ appeals, the following points arise for our consideration. (1) Whether Rule 11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 framed under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the said rule is also made applicable to the minority educational institutions? (2) Having framed the said Rule, whether the State Government is empowered to relax the same? 3. The factual matrix that gives rise to the filing of the writ appeals are as fo...
M.A. Adam Vs. R. Marudai and Ilango @ Kamatchi Nattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ672
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. The plaintiff took the suit property from the original owner named Naga Naicker on a monthly rent of Rs.14/= to run a cycle shop from 19.10.1962. In July 1982, the plaintiff was asked to vacate the property and rent was also refused by the landlord. The plaintiff sent the rent by money order, but it was refused. On 17.05.1983, the plaintiff met with an accident and taking treatment for two months and taking advantage of this, the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant, demolished the building in the property and removed the articles as well as cash. A police complaint was also given, but no action was taken. The defendants are trying to put up new building in the property after taking forcible possession.The defendants resisted the suit stating that the plaintiff was running the cycle shop in the pr...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii, Madras Vs. the Coromandel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)85; [2002]257ITR792(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. We shall deliver the judgment in both the T.C. Nos.594 of 1987 and 382 of 1988. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the question framed in T.C. No.594 of 1987 which is more or less identical with the question framed in T.C.No.382 of 1988 also. The question is as under:-' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee-company is an industrial undertaking and is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The question was referred at the instance of the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal has found that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. For arriving at this finding, the Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision reported in C.I.T. v. PRESSURE PILING CO. : [1980]126ITR333(Bom) . In that judgment, the Bombay High Court had held that an industry which was engaged in the business of construction act...
Sarojini Vs. Muthu Navithan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ26
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellant/defendant having lost in both the Courts below has filed this second appeal.2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,230/- against the appellant. The suit was based on a promissory note executed by the appellant. The trial Court on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent herein. In the appeal filed by the appellant, the said decree was confirmed. Hence, this second appeal.3. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgments and other records.4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- and executed a promissory note on 6.9.1997. Since the amount was not paid back despite receipt of the notice, he filed a suit against the appellant. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and one Loganathan were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the def...
Cit Vs. Coromandel Engg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN828(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. We shall deliver the judgment in both the T.C. Nos. 594 of 1987 and 382 of 1988. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the question framed in T.C. No. 594 of 1987 which is more or less identical with the question framed in T.C. No. 382 of 1988 also. The question is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee-company is an industrial undertaking and is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question was referred at the instance of the revenue. The Tribunal has found that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For arriving at this finding, the Tribunal has relied on the decision in CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. India (P) Ltd. : [1980]126ITR333(Bom) . In that judgment, the Bombay High Court had held that an industry which was engaged in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »