Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
M. Narisimhan Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC327
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The plaintiff purchased house bearing door No. 3-1-20 under a registered sale deed dated 23.6.1972 for Rs.1000 executed by Pankajam Ammal for herself and on behalf of minor son. He again purchased house No. 24 under a registered sale deed dated 16.4.1975 for Rs. 1500 from one Asalu Iyengar and Thiruvenkata Iyengar. The two properties were purchased out of his own earnings and both the properties were adjacent to one another. During 1976, the plaintiff demolished the two houses and constructed a single house bearing door No. 23, ward No.12 and assessment was also made in his name. The plaintiff came to know on 30.12.1977 the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to attach the schedule mentioned property in pursuance of an Arbitration Award obtained by the 2nd defendant aga...
Tag this Judgment!Malati G. Dhamani Vs. Shriram Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd.- Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ31
K. Sampath, J. 1. The respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.4217/83 for recovery of Rs.3075/- from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein as money due in respect of a chit transaction. The appellant/first defendant was the successful bidder at the auction held on 14-7-1979 for Rs.11,700/-. She along with respondents 2 and 3 executed a joint promissory note on 14-8-1979 for Rs.16,000/-, after deducting the 8 instalments already paid by her. Respondents 2 and 3 executed a surety bond for payment of future instalments by the appellant. Before receiving the prized money, she paid Rs.4000/- to the plaintiff and after receiving the prized amount, she paid Rs.13,500/- and afterwards, she failed and neglected to pay the future instalments in spite of repeated demands made on her. For the amount of balance due in a sum of Rs.2500/- with interest, the suit came to be filed.2. The defence set up by defendants 1 and 3 was as follows:True and correct statement of account had not been furnished ...
Tag this Judgment!Spartek Emerging Opportunities (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. Argus Cosmetics Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC927; (2002)3MLJ364
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. In this application, the applicant has sought for revival and restoration of Company Petition No. 76 of 1997 to file, as per the order, dated 23.11.2001.2. The applicant filed Company Petition No.76 of 1997 for winding up of the respondent company by reason of its inability to pay their debts. According to the applicant, while the company petition was pending, a memo of compromise was entered into between the parties on 25.3.1998, in which, the respondent admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 1,70,70,080 and agreed to pay the same in instalments. The respondent failed to make payment as per the compromise and the Division Bench directed admission of the company petition and publication of notice of the same on 28.3.2000. The respondent filed an affidavit of undertaking to pay the above said sum in instalments and it again defaulted. The petition was heard and order was reserved and at the time of pronouncement of the order, the respondent once again offer...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. E. Johnson and Two ors. Vs. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ441
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since common issue is raised in these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the proceedings of Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History - first respondent herein dated 30.1.1996, extending his period of Probation for six months with effect from 24.1.96, Dr. E. Johnson-petitioner has filed W.P.No. 1454 of 96 to quash the said order and consequently forbear the respondents from treating him as a probationer.2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the very same Institution dated 30.01.96, terminating their Probation and discharging them from the services of Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History-first respondent, Dr.Mathew K. Sabastian and Dr. C.P. Geevan, petitioners have filed W.P.Nos. 1784/96 and 1842/96 respectively to quash those proceedings and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate them in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.3. The comm...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramalingam Vs. C. Ramasamy and Gandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ460
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The first defendant who lost before the courts below has filed the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. The 2nd defendant is a person who is claiming under the first defendant and he remained exparte throughout. 3. The suit property relates to about 2.93 acres of land which was originally owned by one Yovan s/o.Samuel. One Kunjan obtained a lease of 1.5 acres under Ex.A1 on 4.8.34 for a period of 6 years. He was holding over that land even after the lease period was over. Thereafter, by Ex.A2 Kunjan assigned his right on 8.11.50 in favour of one Chellayan Nadar, the father of the plaintiff and first defendant. The said Chellayan obtained a lease of the remaining portion of the land under Ex.A3 in the year 1949 from the heirs of Yovan for a period of 12 years. Thereafter, in the year 1957 under Ex.B3 the same heirs of Yovan mortgaged the entire properties to Neelu the wife of...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.M. Anwar Batha Rep. by His Power Agent T.M.S. Alaudeen Vs. S.P. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ464
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. These Revisions have been preferred against the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes made in M.P.Nos.3559 & 3561 of 2002 in Distress Application No.37 of 2002 and M.P.Nos.3560 & 3562 of 2002 in Distress Application No.40 of 2002 respectively, in and by which, while allowing the M.Ps., distraint warrants issued earlier came to be vacated and as a consequence of which, the distrained articles were directed to be released forthwith.2. Mr. B.S. Sundaramoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that by virtue of Section 60 of the Presidency of Small Causes Act, in order to entertain the application to discharge/suspend the distraint warrant issued under Section 53 of the Act, the application should have been filed within five days from the date of seizure and in such circumstances, the application itself having been filed beyond the prescribed time limit, the same was liable to be rejected in limine. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. G.A. Samanthakamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)248; [2003]259ITR215(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of both the tax case references as a common question is involved. The following question was referred to us at the instance of the Revenue and under the directions of this court ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the provision of Section 249(4) as amended would not apply to the assessee's case is sustainable in law ?'2. A few facts first : The relevant assessment years for these two tax case references are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,799 and Rs. 1,902 for these two years, respectively, under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), as the assessee had failed to file the returns in time. The assessee preferred appeals against these penalties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, found that the admitted taxes for the assessment years had not been paid up to June 2, 1978, when the appeals were present...
Tag this Judgment!The State Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Health and Famil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC500
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. The respondent is an educational trust and is already running Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Meenakshi College of Nursing, Meenakshi College of Physiotheraphy, Meenakshi College of Occupational Therapy, Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman College of Engineering, Vadamavandal, Meenakshi College of Engineering, Uthiramerur, Meenakshi Arts and Science College for Women, Uthiramerur, Meenakshi Ammal Polytechnic, Meenakshi Ammal Industrial Training Institute and Meenakshi Ammal Matriculation School.2. Intending to establish a medical college under the name and style of, 'Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute', the respondent applied on 23.10.1997 to the appellants for the grant of Essentiality Certificate at Enathur near Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu. There was a long delay in processing the application and to expedite the same, the respondent filed W.P. No. 6755 of 1998 and by order dated 19.5.199 8, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the appellants t...
Tag this Judgment!Rane (Madras) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)403; [2003]259ITR307(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Four questions have been referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The first question is whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.75,706/- being salary paid to the drivers should be taken into account for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 37(3A) for the Assessment Year 1984-85.3. This question, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, is covered by the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax -vs- Sholinger Textiles Ltd. : [1999]240ITR908(Mad) . Applying the law laid down therein, this question is required to be and is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.4. The second question is whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the reimbursement of the medical expenses made to the director/Divisional Mana...
Tag this Judgment!V. Santhanam Vs. S. Sathya,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad94
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.106 of 1999 laid by the first respondent-wife and her two minor children viz., Respondents 2 and 3, for maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 2. Pending the above suit, the respondents herein viz. plaintiffs in the above suit filed I.A.No.2 of 2000 for interim maintenance claiming a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.750/- per month to each of the minor children viz., respondents 2 and 3 /defendants 2 and 3.3. The application for interim maintenance was resisted by the revision petitioner-husband, contending that in the absence of any specific provision under the Act for awarding interim maintenance, the very application for interim maintenance itself is not maintainable. 4.The Court below by decree and order dated 4.7.2002, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the revision petitioner-husband is a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »