Chennai Court July 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.
M. Sivagnanam (Died), Vs. S. Rajeswari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ8
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. Should the 1928 will of the testator who died in the year 1929 be construed in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and whether the testator intended that the ultimate bequest should go to the heirs of his son both male and female are the questions to be decided here. 2. One Subramania Pillai executed a will Ex. A2 dated 22.05.1928. The recitals of the Will will be extracted later. Broadly the intention of the testator appears to have been to protect the properties from being dissipated by his son Manickam who according to the testator was weak and liable to be taken advantage of by others. Therefore, he gave his son a life interest in the property without powers of alienation with the absolute interest to be taken by the heirs of his son. There are other clauses which deal with what should happen if the son Manickam died issueless. On 01.07.1963 under Ex. A4 Manickam executed a settlement deed in respect of the properties bequeathed unde...
V.A.V. Balakrishna Naidu Vs. Minor Suresh by Next Friend and Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ1
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. An ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance is sought to be set aside in a subsequent suit on the ground that the ex parte decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. 2. The appellant claimed that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the father of the respondent. The notice issued by the appellant herein prior to filing the suit was returned unserved. Then he filed O.S.No.486 of 1980 for specific performance. The suit summons returned unserved. Substituted service was effected. Thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed by the Court. This was in 1981. Even in the execution proceedings notice was not received by the judgment debtor. Thereafter the Court executed the sale deed on 07-04-1983. So through out there is no proof that the father of the respondent herein was aware of the suit notice, the initiation of the suit or its culmination or the execution proceedings. It appears that in 1984, the appellant armed by the sale deed in his f...
Management of Karungalpalayam Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ187Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In the above writ petition filed by the management of the co- operative society, the petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, dated December 16, 1994, and to quash the same.2. The short facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition is that an employee by name K.G. Krishnah was dismissed from service by the petitioner-society. He had raised a dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court on coming to the conclusion that dismissal was without enquiry, directed reinstatement of the employee. Hence, the above writ petition.3. The following facts are not in dispute:The said Krishnan was accused of having misappropriated the funds of the society. An arbitration proceeding was initiated against him and the arbitrator by his award, dated March 13, 1985, held that the plaintiff society is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,59,992.02 from the said Krishnan as a result of stock defici...
Special Officer, Pollachi Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. and Uma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ286Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Special Officer, Pollachi Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated November 24, 1994, made in I.D. No. 415 of 1989, ordering reinstatement of the second respondent with back wages has filed Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995 to quash the same on various grounds.2. The second respondent - S. Uma Maheswari, has filed Writ Petition No. 821 of 1998 questioning the award, dated November 14, 1997, made in I.D. No. 121 of 1996 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.3. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by the following common order.4. For convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995.5. The case of the petitioner-society is briefly stated hereunder:The society had many fair price shops situated in various villages in and around Pollachi. In the fair price shops essential commodities such...
Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC416
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The claimants are the appellants.2. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking for the award of compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs for the death of the husband of the first appellant, since he died in the road accident when the lorry belonging to the second respondent which was insured with the Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, hit against the deceased.3. The Tribunal, after inquiry, awarded Rs. 2,16,000/- with 12% interest from the date of petition till realisation, directing the first and second respondents, namely, the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay the said award amount, holding that the Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, is not liable to pay the award amount, as the first respondent/driver was not possessing the driving licence which has been proved by the Insurance Company. Seeking for the enhancement of the award and for modification of the award with reference to the liability of the Insurance Company, the claimants have f...
Munaga Seshachalam Chetty Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC590(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The assessee challenges in this revision, the concurrent orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)II, as also the initial assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. All the three authorities below have taken a view that the turnover of Rs. 1,30,900 by the assessee was liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, inviting 6 per cent of tax. The authorities have also inflicted penalty, on account of the assessee having given an incorrect turnover in an incorrect manner in the return.2. The assessee sold the goods, namely, the groundnut outside the State and claimed that the goods were sold in his capacity as a commission agent of an agriculturist. The assessment related to the year 1985-86 and it seems that, even before the assessing authority, the assessee claimed that if at all, he was liable to pay tax at the rate of 3 per cent. The assessing officer found that...
Kongu Engineering College Represented by Its Correspondent, Mr. M.N. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ777
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Self-financing technical institutions, as also self-financing Arts and Science colleges offering Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Computer Application (MCA) courses with the approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) such approval having been granted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987, (Central Act No.52 of 1987) (Act) and who are affiliated to one or the other of six Universities - University of Madras, Anna University, Madurai Kamaraj University, Periyar University, Bharathiar University, and Bharathidasan University, have in these writ petitions questioned the legality and reasonableness of two Tamil Nadu Government Orders in G.O. Ms. No.108 (Higher Education (J1) Department) dated 09.04.2002 and G.O. Ms.No.112 (Higher Education (J1) Department) dated 18.04.2002.2. The Government Order No.108 dated 09.04.2002 sets out that the Government had been informed by the Director of Technical Educa...
S. Ramasamy Vs. Velappa Gounder (Deceased), Sengottaiyan, Chokkalingam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ830
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. One Sennimalai Gounder had six sons and when he died on 28.06.1982, he left behind him surviving his wife and above six sons. The appellant is the second son and respondents 1 to 5 are the other sons and the sixth respondent is the wife. Respondents 7 to 9 are the Legal Heirs of the first respondent who died pending this appeal. The appellant filed a suit for partition claiming his separate share in six items of the properties on the ground that they were all ancestral properties. The Trial Court accepted his case with regard to item Nos.1 and 6, but dismissed the suit as regards item Nos.2 to 5 on the ground that they were self acquired properties of Sennimalai Gounder and they had been dealt with by him in the Will dated 25.1.1981 Ex.B.24.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant attacked the genuineness of the Will for the following reasons. First, the third respondent and the testator were living in the same house; so the third respondent had the oppo...
Cwt Vs. P. Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN345(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, when the firm itself has not manufactured or processed any goods on its own looms ?'2. At the out set, the learned standing counsel for the department very fairly states that this matter is covered by the decision of this court in CWT v. K. Lakshmi : [1983]142ITR656(Mad) . In that view, the question referred to us is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs....
Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN321(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent on the plant and machinery used by it in the production of sugar, on the ground that it comes into contact with corrosive chemicals ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company, manufacturing sugar and claimed depreciation on the plant and machinery used by it for purposes of manufacture of sugar at the rate of 15 per cent on the ground that they came into contact with corrosive chemicals. The Income Tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim for allowance of depreciation at the higher rate of 15 per cent and allowed depreciation at the general rate of 10 per cent. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »