Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
L.T. Rajan, Vs. K. Ramasamy and K. Palpandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ468
1. This Second Appeal has been filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit was filed by the appellants herein for delivery of possession and for compensation.2. The case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-Defendants 2 to 7 are the heirs of one Tulasiram, who was a tenant under one Jehangir in respect of a vacant site in Door No.13. Tulasiram put up a tiled construction and was residing in it. Since he committed default in paying rent, notice dated 09.09.1969 was given by Jehangir demanding to vacate the premises within December, 1969. Thereafter, he filed O.S.No.166/70 for recovery of arrears of rent as well as possession of the property. In that suit, the tenant Tulasiram filed O.P.No.25/70 for a direction to sell the property to him. In that O.P., an order was passed on 13.10.1970 directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.12,012/- in Court deposit in three quarterly instalments beginning from 05.05.1971, failing which the owner of the property, Jehangir, shall pa...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Pitchaiyammal Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Rep. by Its Secretary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ625
K. Sampath, J.1. Both the second appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment as the substantial questions of law involved are common to both the matters.2. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary filed various suits before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, averring as follows:The properties set out in the different plaints had been dedicated for performing pious, religious and charitable deeds; they belong to a Wakf, the administration of which is governed by Central Act 29 of 1954 and as the properties had been alienated by the descendants of the settlors under various sale deeds to the defendants in the different suits, the suits were filed for a declaration that the sales were invalid in law, that the properties by their very nature, being inalienable and the alienations being beyond the powers of alienors, cannot bind the Wakf and that in those circumstances, for declaration that the suit properties in all the suits are Wakf properties and for p...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramalingam Vs. Parvathi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ415
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. One Sundaram, a per meant resident at Periyathatchur Agaram Village, Dindivanam Taluk was returning from Kollidam Thaikkal with his hand cart to his house in Kalaignar Colony at about 20.00 hours on 16.01.1990, when a tractor bearing Registration No. TCO-6043 attached with a Trailor bearing Registration No. TCO-6044, belonging to the 2nd respondent in MCOP No. 206/90 (on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam), driven by one Jagannathan (first respondent in the MCOP) in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him and the cart. In the said incident, the deceased Sundaram sustained serious injuries and subsequently died in Poosai Hospital at Kollidam. Respondents-1 to 4 herein, as petitioners, filed MCOP No. 206 of 1990 against the appellant and Respondents-5 to 7 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation at Rs.1,25,000/-. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Sundaram whi...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Kailasanathar Temple 'SAYARATCHA KATTALAi' rep.by Its Execut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ830
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sayaratchi Kattalai of Arulmighu Kailasanathar Koil, Trichy,/plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and damages. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which, in turn, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal by the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The defendant is the tenant of the suit property, which belongs to the temple/plaintiff. The rent, according to Tamil Calendar, is Rs. 200/- per month. He paid rent up to the end of Iypasi month of Dhunthubi year. The defendant committed default in payment of rent for the months of Karthigai, Margazhi and Thai of Dhunthubi year. The default is wilful. Furthermore, the suit property has not been properly maintained. Therefore, it is damaged beyond repairs and at any moment, the building may be collapsed. Hence, the plaintiff terminated the lease from the month ending with 30th Thai vi...
Tag this Judgment!Vedavalli Ammal Vs. Kathayi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ804
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The defendant who lost before the lower appellate court has filed the present second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over a land. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the property 72 feet on the east and 68 feet width on the west. Beyond that there is a lane of 3 feet on the northern side and one foot on the south adjoining the property. The plaintiff also claimed right of easement namely right to take water and right to drain water through the lane . The case of the plaintiff is that she was also taking water and draining sewerage through that lane. Therefore, the suit for declaration and title over the suit lane. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved his case. On appeal, the appellate court also dismissed the claim for title over the property but held that the petitioner is entitled to easementary right over the same. Against that judgement and decree of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Shanmugham, Vs. Kondalavannan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ134
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The Appellants (who are the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff) having lost before the trial Court as well as before the learned single Judge of this Court, has preferred the above appeal. The plaintiff laid a suit in O.S.706 of 1977 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore against the respondents 1 to 7 and the father of the respondents 8 and 9 herein praying the Court to grant a decree in her favour as well as 7th defendant (who is 6th respondent in this appeal) setting aside the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE i.e., 8th defendant (who is 7th respondent in this appeal) in A.P.104 of 1975 and further declaring that the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are entitled to hold office as the hereditary trustees of the temples or in the alternative, the defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to hold office as hereditary trustees of the above temples and then declare that the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are entitled to hold office as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balammal, Vs. Velayutham (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ814
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a the suit for declaration that the suit properties are their absolute properties and they are entitled to get possession after the life time of Kannammal, the first defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, the appeal filed by Velayudham, the second defendant, challenging the said decree, was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:'The suit properties belonged to one Kalivarada Pillai. He had no issues. He bequeathed the said properties by a registered Will dated 13.5.1938 in favour of Thangavelu Pillai, the husband of the first plaintiff, by giving absolute right to him and bequeathed usufructs by giving the life estate to Kannammal, the first defendant and her husband Natesa Pillai. After the death of Kalivarada Pillai, the first defendant and her husband were in enjoyment of the usufructs from the suit prop...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rangaswamy Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC408(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The applicant filed an application to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from infringing the applicant's copyright in any manner or by representing to any third parties, the efficacy of their products as partof the process in the drawings, diagrams and literature annexed as document No. 1 in the plaint.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration , that he is the owner of the copy right in the drawings, schematic diagrams and literature mentioned in document No. 1. It is used to describe his pilfer-proof process, for securing transportation of liquid petroleum cargo in trucks and for a consequential injunction. The applicant seeks to protect his intellectual property rights in the system and methodology developed by him, as evidenced by the diagrams and drawings. The respondent/defendant is now making hectic canvassing for selling its locks as part of the Pilfer Proof Locking Syste...
Tag this Judgment!Coonoor Club Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)333
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was rightly assessed to tax under the WT Act, 1957 ?'2. The assessee had filed a Nil return under the WT Act in response to notice issued under Section 16(2) of the WT Act. It relied on the decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years wherein it had been held that the club was not an AOP taxable under the WT Act. The AO who proceeded to make an assessment nevertheless observed that the earlier decision of the Tribunal had not been accepted by the Revenue. On appeal, the AO's view was affirmed after observing that the appellant is an 'AOP'. The appellate authority relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Coimbatore Club v. WTO (1985) 153 ITR 172. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that it was bound by the decision of this Court in the case of Coimbatore Club ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashoka Betelnut Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR733(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1983-84. The questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue are:1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the terminal allowance under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the demolished building is Rs.1,60,866/- and not Rs.1,10,867/- as computed by the Income-tax Officer? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that only the actually realised value of the scrap and not the value of the scrap as such, which has to be taken into account in computing the Terminal allowance?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company which had owned a building at the Jail Road complex, Coimbatore. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.1,60,866/- as loss on assets scrapped, that building having been demolished in the financial year preceding the assessment year. The assessee claimed that no ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »