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.
C.M. Abubucker Vs. C.M. Gun Syed Sahib Zulaika Bi (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ34
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant in both appeals is the defendant in both the suits. The respondent in A.S.No.209/87 is the wife of the respondent in A.S.NO.880/86.2. Two suits were filed against the appellant for recovery of money due on promissory notes. Against the decree in O.S.No.4/79 A.S.No.880/86 has been filed Against the decree in O.S.No.584/79 A.S.No.209/87 has been filed. The promissory notes in O.S.4/79 were dated 10.2.74 and 9.10.74. The suit was filed on 2.1.1979 by the respondent seeking the right to exclude the period during which he was prevented from filing the suit by virtue of the various Debt Relief Acts. The promissory notes in O.S.No..584/79 were dated 25.5.75 and 19.9.76. The suit was filed on 11.9.79 by the respondent seeking exclusion of the period during which the suit was barred by the aforesaid acts. The respondents claimed that they believed in good faith that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of those Acts.3. The respondent denied the executio...
S. Ayyathurai thevar (Died), Vs. Arulmighu Mathirapureeswearaswami Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad83
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant in the second appeal is the first defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 232 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi laid by the first respondent herein against the appellant herein and respondents 2 to 4 herein, who stood ex-parte in the said suit.2. The plaintiff/first respondent herein, laid the said suit for declaration that the plaintiff/first resopndent is entitled to have half share in the produce from the suit coconut thope and to fix the same as fair rent, alleging that the respondents were permitted to raise coconut trees in the suit property to an extent of 8 acres 16 cents in Jambavanodai Vadakku Kadu Vattam, and that they are entitled to have the half share in the usufructs of trees as per the local custom and usage.3. The defendants/appellants herein resisted the suit on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent with reference to thopes, quoting the earlier decisions of this Court between the p...
Maria Stella, Vs. T. Joseph Catherine,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad270; (2002)3MLJ111
K. Govindarajan, J.1. One Mariakannammal, an Indian Christian had two sons and no daughters, of whom her first son Xavier predeceased her leaving behind him two sons and a daughter through his first wife and a daughter through his second wife. Another son Joseph had no male issues and had only two daughters. She executed a will on 10.8.1941. Thereafter, after making certain changes, she executed another will dated 20.10.1949. In 1954, she executed a codicil dated 15.8.1954 to the said will. Again on 22.12.1958 she executed another will, the registration copy of which is marked as Ex.A1. On 17.7.1959 she made a codicil,the registration copy of which has been marked as Ex.A2. 2. According to the respondents, confirming the said will and codicil, she executed two settlement deeds marked as Exs.A5 and A6 in favour of Joseph Catherine giving immediate effect to the legacy provided to her under the will. She also executed another settlement deed dated 10.10.1966, marked as Ex.A7. According t...
Govindan Engineering Foundry Trichy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC579(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two tax case appeals, they being T.C. Appeal Nos.19 and 20 of 1995, as the issue involved is identical. 2. By these appeals, under Sec.37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short TNGST Act), the assessee challenges the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner dated 4-11-1994 (in T.C. No.19 of 1995) and 12-9-1994 (in T.C. No.20 of 1995), which he had passed under his suo motu revisional powers. In these orders, the Joint Commissioner had set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the orders passed by the assessing authority. The Joint Commissioner also inflicted penalty under Sec.9(2) of the Central Sales Tax (in short CST Act) read with Sec.6(2) of the TNGST Act. Some facts, which are common to both the appeals, would be necessary to understand the controversy. 3. The assessee is a partnership, carrying on the business under the name and style of Tvl. Govindan Engineering Foundary, Trichy...
Villupuram Municipality, Rep. by Its Commissioner, Villupuram Vs. M. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ375
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. In all these second appeals Villupuram Municipality is the appellant who filed different suits against the respondents in each of the appeals herein. The relief sought for by the Municipality in the suits is for the declaration that the suit property is to be kept for the common use of the residents of the locality, for the purpose of construction of school and playground and also for consequential injunction restraining the respondents herein from putting up any construction. The first respondent is the erstwhile owner of the property who applied for the sanction of the lay out . The Deputy Director of Town Planning accorded sanction in his proceedings Ex.A1 dated 16.5.1984 in Roc.No.1976/1984. As per the said lay out sanction, the property under dispute should be kept for the construction of the school and play ground. Since the first respondent, contrary to the sanctioned lay out, had further divided the disputed property in to plots and sold the same to the seco...
Adair Dutt and Co. (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR673(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This court had earlier negatived the plea of the petitioner that it is entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. 18 of 1960), and that its tenancy in respect of 400 square feet in the ground floor of premises 109 and 110, Mount Road, cannot be brought to an end by making an order under Section 269UD(1) followed by a demand under Section 269UD(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delivery of possession. Subsequently, the apex court set aside that judgment and remitted the case for disposal afresh. While so doing, the apex court has in paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in Adair Dutt and Co. India Private Limited v. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department : [1996]222ITR438(SC) , noticed the contention that had been advanced by counsel before it, that though the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, excludes Government buildings from its purview, such exclusion is confined only to bu...
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shreechakra Enterprises and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad1
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for a direction to the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,90,325.50 together with contractual rate of interest at 21% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of plaint till realisation, for a charge decree in case of default, for a personal decree and for costs.2. Plaint averments are as follows :On behalf of the first defendant, its partners viz. defendants 2 and 3 have approached the plaintiff for Packing Credit Loan. Accordingly, the plaintiff sanctioned the said loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The defendants 2 and 3 have borrowed the said loan on 16-2-1990 and jointly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the loan together with interest at the contractual rate of 7.58 per annum with quarterly rests. The defendants 2 and 3 have also executed Packing Credit Loan Agreement. They have executed a letter of hypothecation on 16-2-1990. Guaranteeing the due repayment of the loan am...
T. Amudha and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)87; [2004]269ITR501(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The order of the Appropriate Authority, by which it directed the purchase of the plot measuring about fourteen and half grounds at No. 21, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, which plot had been agreed to be sold to the petitioners by one Nagarathinam Mudaliar and his three sons under an agreement of sale deed dated August 9, 1989, has been challenged in these writ petitions.2. Form No. 37-I in relation to the property was filed on or immediately after the execution of the agreement. Thereafter, the matter appears to have developed complications, which has resulted in the matter still lying unresolved even after a span of thirteen years from the date of the agreement.3. In the agreement, it was stated that the vendors had entered into a partnership with one Bay Engineering Construction Company and that the persons who had joined them in that partnership, who were not members of the vendor's family had agreed to dissolve the firm. It was also stated that the petitioners ...
Kovai Auto Parts Vs. Chief Cit (Tech)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN346(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. The point raised in these writ petitions is one which has been considered by us in our order dated 11-7-2002 in W.P. No. 9946 of 1989. Following what has been said by us in that order, the writ petitioners herein also are entitled to succeed, as they are also tenants holding over on month to month basis and termination of their tenancy was not one of the terms of the agreement to sell. Consequently, the impugned orders directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the premises, passed under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will not have the effect of enabling the Central Government to dispossess the petitioners without resorting to the Central legislation, viz., the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.2. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside. It is open to the respondents to terminate the tenancy and initiate action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act....
Adair Dutt and Co. (India (P) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)120
ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDEffect on tenancy rightCatch Note:High Court had earlier negatived plea of petitioner that it was entitled to protection of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that its tenancy cannot be brought to an end by making order under section 269UD(1)--Subsequently, Apex Court set aside that judgment and remitted case for disposal afresh--Petitioner has stated that it has been a tenant of premises from 1955 at a monthly rental of Rs. 300, and has claimed protection of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960--Same acceptable--An order made under section 269UD and other provisions of Income Tax Act do not always have the effect of depriving a tenant of his tenancy rights more so where agreement to sell specifically provides for purchaser being enabled to receive rents from the tenant after due notice to tenant by seller--Therefore, that tenancy cannot be said to have come to an end by reason of proceedings taken under Chapter XX-C.R...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »