Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ731
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed the above Appeal having aggrieved by the order, dated 27.6.2003, rejecting their Application, in Application No. 1650/2003 seeking leave to sue the respondents/defendants and to institute the suit under Sec. 92 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a decree to remove defendants 1 to 8 from the Chennai Vazal Duraiyur Nadar Uravin Murai Magamai Sangam, directing the defendants to deliver possession of the land and building at Door No. 80, S.R.P. Kovil Street, Agaram, Chennai.82 to the 1st plaintiff and its members, directing the defendants to return the books, Bank Pass Books, cheques, ledgers, Bill Books and other records of the Sangam to the plaintiffs and directing defendants 1 to 8 to render the accounts relating to the income from the Kalyana Mandapam and other receipts received on behalf of the Sangam. Since the plaintiffs have to obtain leave from the Court before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Chennai)916
1. Out of the three appeals, two are by the Department and the third is by the assessee. The relevant assessment years are 1993-94 and 1994-95, and are directed against the order of CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 4th June, 1996.2. The first issue in the Departmental appeals is regarding deletion of the addition by learned CIT(A) on account of the withheld amounts and such withheld amounts were claimed as deduction from the total contract receipts by the assessee on the ground as the assessee was showing these receipts as and when received by the assessee. The ground 2 in both the Departmental appeals read as under : "2(a) The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of withheld amount and such deposits claimed as deduction from the total contract receipts by the assessee, on the ground that the assessee was maintaining cash system of accounting. (b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee became entitled to the total contract receipt as revenue receipt im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)IILLJ923Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.86/94 dated 23.5.1995,quash the same and to direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post protecting his last drawn pay with all the arrears of pay and attendant benefits.2. The petitioner joined service in the second respondent corporation as driver on 29.6.1990 on daily wages of Rs.40/-. A new order of appointment dated 5.10.1991 was issued to the petitioner and he was posted to Pondicherry Branch and his posting order was issued on 17.10.1991. He had completed all the requirements of making caution deposit, contribution to Medical College and Engineering College and the other deposits as required under the order of appointment. On 6.4.1992 at midnight, while he was driving the bus towards Madras, one lorry coming from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad294
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The defendant before the Court below is the appellant herein.2. The respondents herein have filed the suit before the Court below praying for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,518.77 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and for costs on averments such as that the first plaintiff's Calcutta Officer despatched imported tin plates to their Madras Office by means of stock transfer under the Current Account Advice No. 5/5936 dated 5-8-1982, the value of which is Rs. 2,00,475.45 only; that under the said stock transfer vide challan No. 25458 and 25461 of 3-7-82, 21024 sheets measuring 81 x 665 x 22 mm were entrusted to the defendant carrier for safe carriage and delivery at Madras; that the defendant carrier accepted such entrustment from the first plaintiff on 30-7-1982 and issued their consignment notice dated 30-7-1982 thereby undertaking to carry those 21024 sheets packed in 6 skids; when the vehicle carrying the consignment in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)ACC443; 2004ACJ1573; 2004(2)CTC416; (2004)1MLJ589
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. First respondent in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 1134 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, owner of lorry bearing registration No. KA03 3614 which involved in the accident is the appellant in the above appeal. In respect of death of one Thoppai Konar in a road accident that took place on 24-2-94, his wife, daughters and son have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, 5th claimant, son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Renu as P.W.2 besides marking Exs. P-1 to P-3 in support of their claim. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2nd respondent therein, their Officers were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and they also marked Exs. R-1 to R-13 in support of their defence. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an award for Rs. 51,000/- and directed the first respondent therei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)ACC101; 2004ACJ1510; 2004(1)CTC677; (2004)1MLJ699
P. Sathasivam, J., 1. Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli is the appellant in the above appeals. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 14-8-1992, one Srirengam filed M.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1993 praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. During the pendency of the said petition, the said Srirengam died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4. In respect of death of one Duraipandi in the very same accident, his wife, children and mother filed M.C.O.P. No. 382 of 93 praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Both the claim petitions were tried together. 2nd claimant in the former petition (M.C.O.P. No. 15/1993) was examined as P.W.1 and first petitioner in the latter petition (M.C.O.P. No. 382/1993) as P.W.2, besides marking of Exs. P-1 to P-8 in support of their claim. On the side of the Transport Corporation, their driver was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad311
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal has arisen from out of the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.1983 made in I.A. No. 251 of 1979 in O.S. No. 614 of 1979, passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, whereby it has granted the final decree on the preliminary decree passed in the Original Suit.2. The appellant is the plaintiff and he filed a suit originally in O.S. No. 9 of 1967 on the file of District Court, West Thanjavur for partition and separate possession of her one fourth share in the suit properties providing for payment of all liabilities of the estate, for costs of the suit and for directing the 5th defendant to pay costs of the plaintiff; that it was transferred to the file of Sub Court, Thanjavur and re-numbered as O.S. No. 55 of 1967; that defendants 1,2, 4 and 5 contested the suit; that a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit properties and to file a report; that issues were framed for consideration; that witnesses were examined and documents were marked; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)BC504; 2004(2)CTC101
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. O.S. Sajeevan and M. Balasundaram took five arrack shops on lease in Mettupalayam Taluk during 1984-85. They appointed the petitioner as Power of Attorney agent. As a Power of Attorney agent, the petitioner was authorised to run the shops and also take all such actions necessary for that purpose including instituting proceedings in a Court of law against the Government to recover amounts due if any. It appears there was some default on the part of the licensees and according to the respondents, a sum of Rs. 4,48,722 is payable to them. The respondents, by notice dated 12.9.1996, called upon the petitioner to make good the payment. The petitioner, through his counsel, sent a reply to the effect that he being only a Power of Attorney agent, cannot be made personally liable. But even thereafter, a second notice dated 5.11.1996 was sent by the respondents to the petitioner. In the said notice, the respondents have stated that the explanation given by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)BC198; [2005]123CompCas372(Mad); 2004(1)CTC488; (2004)189CTR(Mad)277
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above Appeal is filed by the plaintiff having aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1999 in C.S.No. 221/1997.2. The plaintiff married one Jansi Rani, who was originally married to Ramesh and gave birth to two sons, who are defendants 2 and 3. The said. Ramesh died in a road accident and the plaintiff married Jansi Rani on 21.2.1994. According to the plaintiff, his father borrowed money from the 1st defendant-bank and when the plaintiff wanted to settle the said demand made from the 1st defendant-bank, the bank insisted the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the bank and so he made such deposit, in a short term deposit, on 30.3.1994, but in the name of his deceased wife Jansi Rani. On 13.5.1994 she committed suicide and thereby she died. When the plaintiff tried to withdraw the money from the 1st defendant-bank, the bank insisted the plaintiff to produce succession certificate and so the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 221/1997 for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad231; 2004(2)CTC48
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the premises bearing Door No.39, Nattu Pillaiyar Koil St., Chennai - 600 001 in R.S.No.6663, Block No.56, V.O.C.Nagar, within the Sub-registration office of Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 001. 2. The second respondent by proceedings dated 28.08.1990, pointing out the deviations in the construction put up by the petitioner, issued the demolition notice under Section 56 read with Section 85 of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, requiring the petitioner to comply with the planning permission granted under Section 49 of the Act. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 49 of the Act, seeking building permission and for regularisation of the deviated construction of the building. However, the second respondent by proceedings dated 05.10.1993 rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the first floor construction is in deviation to the earlier approved plan and Second Floor...
Tag this Judgment!