Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Senior Regional Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad110
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing C.M.A. No. 188 of 2000 preferred against the order passed in I.A. No. 16309 of 1997 in O.S.No.14544 of 1996 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The respondent, Spencer & Co Limited, the plaintiff, filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant for a decree directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the land, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- by way of damages for use and occupation from 01.06.1980 to 30.09.1980 and to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26,250/- per month by way of damage and use and occupation from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for costs.3. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No. 16309 of 1997 under the provisions of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act offering to purchase the property for a reasona...
Tag this Judgment!R. Govindasamy Vs. the District Collector and the Assistant Director ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC139
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner, who was a successful bidder, was granted lease to quarry ordinary rough stones and jally in Survey No. 377/1, Gangapuram Village, Erode Taluk, of an extent of 2.00.0 hectares, by proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.12.1997, for a period of five years from 20.1.1998 to 19.1.2003, which admittedly expired. However, contending that he could not effectively operate the impugned quarry for a period of nine months from 15.10.2001 to 16.7.2002 due to heavy rainfall, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the lease period/licence for quarrying ordinary rough stones and jally in Survey no.377/1, measuring 2.00.0 hectares situated at Gangapuram Village, Erode Taluk, by a period of nine months compensating the non quarrying period from 15.10.2001 to 16.7.2002.2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the ratio laid down in V. KARNAL DURAI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR reported in : (1999)1SCC4...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraj and Lingammal Vs. C.P. Munikrishnappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ48
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur made in A.S. No. 15 of 1996 dated 21.09.1998, confirming the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Hosur, made in O.S. No. 238 of 1995 dated 12.12.1995.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein filed the suit for title over the suit property and for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, on averments such as that the suit property originally belongs to Poojari Muniappa's son Thandavappa - 1 and his sons Muniappa - 2 and Bodappa - 3; that one Krishnaiah @ Chinnayyappa bought the said suit property on 20.06.1960 from Thandavappa and his sons; that the first plaintiff bought the suit property from the said Krishnaiah @ Chinnappiah's wife Jayalakshmi on 16.12.1974 through a registered sale deed; that the first defendant is the son of Muniapp...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah and Pitchiah Vs. Amaravathy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad156
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.1988 rendered in A.S. No.58 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondents herein, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1984 rendered in O.S. No.167 of 1983 by the Court of District Munsif, Shencottah.2. Tracing the history of the above Second Appeal coming to be preferred, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs, on averments such as that the first schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff from one Azhagiammal under the document dated 23.6.1944, the second schedule property is forming part of the first schedule property and the same was purchased by the first plaintiff under a document dated 26.9.196...
Tag this Judgment!Adayar Venkatarathnam Nagar Residents Welfare Assocaition Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad159
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is 'Adayar Venkatarathnam Nagar Residents Welfare Association' represented by its Secretary. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that the City Cooperative Housing Society Limited with No. X-422 purchased lands bearing S.F. Nos. 18/3, 19/3, 22/2 and 23 of Pallipattu Village, measuring about 200 grounds by registered sale deeds dated 3.8.1962. After the lay-out plan was drawn, the area was plotted as 85 house sites. In the lay out plan, plot Nos. 1.C, 2.E and 6.E measuring about four grounds were earmarked for public purpose. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that the 6th respondent who is the owner of plot Nos. 4 and 5, encroached upon 664 sq.ft. On the land earmarked for public purpose and has put up construction. The 4th respondent Society has ultimately ratified the construction and sold that extent to the 6th respondent. The 4th respondent society is making attempt to sell the remaining vacant land to the 6th respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director Vs. Dha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC458; 2004ACJ1214; 2003(4)CTC544; (2003)3MLJ652
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Pallavan Transport Corporation, being aggrieved by the award passed in MACT.OP.No. 691 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, has preferred the above appeal.2. The respondents had a son by name Parthiban. On the fateful day, that was on 9.12.1993 at about 7.30 A.M., when he was crossing Suryanarayana Chetty Street from west to east, the bus belonging to the appellant/Corporation, coming from south to north, hit him causing serious injuries and ultimately the said Parthiban succumbed to the injuries. The respondents filed a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the M.A.C.T. Rules, contending that the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Corporation, who drove the bus in question viz., TCB-8112, and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. In the said petition, they contended that the deceased Parthiban was earning Rs. 150 per d...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ashok Kumar Porwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Chennai)129
material not considered by AOThe CIT observed under section 263 that the materials collected by the revenue in the course of search were not properly assessed and utilized by the AO in completing the assessment for impugned assessment year 1993-94. Thus, the CIT set aside the assessment as the seized material indicated suppression of sale by the assessee using its arithmetic code. Held: A complete non-consideration of seized material for the relevant assessment is a good reason for the CIT to hold that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The appeal is filed against the order of the CIT (Central), Chennai, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessment, in this case was completed on 20th Feb., 1996, under Section 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 61,300 as against the returned income of Rs. 51,300. The disallowance was...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Ramasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ792
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Appellant is a professor of Zoology in the University of Madras. He is aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent Dr. Arumugam also as a professor. Both of them possess master and doctoral degrees. While the respondent Dr. Arumugam was appointed as lecturer on 11.11.83, the appellant was appointed to that post on 4.4.85, a year and half later. While they were serving as lecturers, the University adopted a scheme called merit based career development scheme for teachers, the object of which scheme was stated as, 'This scheme is an achievement oriented scheme with the inner motive that only deserving teachers could get the benefit. It is mainly for recognition of achievement'. The respondent Dr. Arumugam was promoted as Reader under that scheme with effect from 16.3.90, when he became eligible for consideration under that scheme, by an order dated 6.10.94. The appellant was appointed as a reader, according to him by direct recruitment, on 19.5.90. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Kaveri Gounder Vs. the Executive Engineer, Public Works Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ367
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. This is a typical case where a person (the appellant herein) has been successful in retaining possession of a valuable property belonging to the State and situated in the heart of Mettur Town, for nearly a quarter century, by instituting some proceedings or other, taking different stand at every stage. 2. The plaintiff, who lost in the courts below, is the appellant herein.3. Briefly, it is his case that for the purpose of constructing Mettur Stanely Dam, lands in T.S. No.4/1 and other lands were acquired way back in 1924. This land was not used for constructing the Dam and the same was lying waste. It is his further case that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death and thereafter he and his sons are in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from any one and that they have perfected the title to the property by adverse possession. According to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant issued a notic...
Tag this Judgment!R. Natarajan Vs. the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad190; (2004)1MLJ199
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner, who is doing real estate business, received a sum of Rs. 43,000/- from the second respondent, as advance towards the sale of housing sites. As the petitioner failed to deliver the said housing sites as per the service contract entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner filed COP No. 60 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent. 2. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the Government have also initiated action against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (in short the 'TNPID Act') and attached the properties of the petitioner, by G.O.Ms. No. 61 and 123, Home (Courts IIA) Department dated 21.1.2002 and 13.2.2002 respectively.3. In view of the attachment of the properties, the petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the second respondent before the first respondent in COP No. 59 of 2003 on the ground that the first respondent has no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »