Chennai Court July 2004 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.
Narasimhan and Mahadevan Vs. Jayakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad24
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 420 of 1994 as against the fair and decreetal order dated 23-10-2003 made in I.A.No. 1288 of 2003 in the said suit on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam. 2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, it comes to be seen that an application was filed by the respondent herein, who is the 5th defendant in the suit under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the proof affidavit filed by the second defendant in the suit, on grounds such as that the first defendant as the Power of Attorney Agent of the second defendant does not have any independent right; that on behalf of the second defendant, the first defendant himself has adduced evidence as P.W.1, which would be considered as that of the evidence of the second defendant and therefore, the second defendant need not necessarily be examined and an applicatio...
V. Natarajan Vs. Saliyur Mahajana Sangam, Rep. by President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC171; (2004)3MLJ682
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above revision petition is filed by the tenant questioning the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Sub Judge, Chidambaram, in the judgment dated 14.11.2003 in R.C.A. No. 11/2002, confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Chidambaram, in the order dated 31.7.2002 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3/1994.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-sangam is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The same was contested by the petitioner/tenant stating that the respondent/landlord is a religious and charitable institution and the Rent Control Court cannot entertain the eviction petition and so the petitioner/landlord before the learned Rent Controller...
L.K.K. Kandasamy Vs. S.P. Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad81; (2004)3MLJ586
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Today when the above Civil Revision Petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of counsel for both, what comes to be seen by this court is that it is an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and under Section 151 CPC, thereby praying to permit the Finger Print Expert to inspect the suit promissory notes with admitted signatures found in minutes book and to give opinion and also give evidence in the suit, which came to be allowed by the lower court is being testified by the defendant in the suit by means of the above Civil Revision Petition.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that in the circumstances neither such an expert's opinion is necessary nor could any private expert be entrusted with the task of offering opinion, which cannot be a conclusive one. More over, the learned counsel would feel that such an opinion obtained is not going to be of much use for the lower ...
A. Subramanian Vs. Muthukrishna Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad43
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An interesting question of law arises in this appeal as to whether the suit filed for mesne profits that accrued during the pendency of the earlier suit is maintainable. The respondent herein instituted an earlier suit against the appellant in O.S. No. 355 of 1989 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Maduranthagam on the ground that the appellant trespassed into the suit property and the appellant was in illegal possession of the suit property. The said suit was instituted for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. The said suit was decreed on 2.4.1992. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant herein, who was the defendant in the suit, preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 47 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Chengalpattu and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.10.1992. The appellant herein preferred a further appeal before this Court in S.A. No. 1801 of 1992 and the same was also dismis...
Subbiah Chetty and Co. Vs. Kanagavel Trading Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad167
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. These Second Appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.1992 made in A.S.No.59 and 60 of 1992 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Cuddalore, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1991 made in O.S.Nos. 26 of 1988 and 76 of 1989 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeals coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, it comes to be known that the plaintiff in O.S. No: 26 of 1988 has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,700/- with 12% interest from defendants 2 to 6, on averments such as that plaintiff is a registered company; that the 1st defendant is the manufacturer and seller of tins at Virudhunagar; that the 2nd defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant company, defendants 3 to 6 are partners of the 1st defendant company; plaintiff was a manufacturer of refined oil which was being sold at sealed tins; plaintiff used to purchase tins from M...
Cit Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN360(Mad)
N. Kannadasan J.The above appeal was admitted, whereby the following substantial questions of law were formulated.'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation on leased out trucks ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rate of depreciation applicable to motor vehicles which are given on hire would also be applicable to vehicles which are leased out ?'2. The respondent herein, while filing its return of income for the assessment year 1991-92, has claimed higher rate of depreciation on leased out trucks, which is not disputed. The assessing officer, while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has disallowed the said claim. As against the said order, the respondent/assessee h is filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who has allowed the claim of the respondent/assessee. As a...
G. Senbagaraman Vs. N. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad41
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 761 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision is filed against the dismissal of I.A. No. 251 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the document, dated 27.8.2001 said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, to the Government Handwriting Expert, Chennai along with the admitted signatures of the defendant for his comparison and report.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on 21.10.2002 for permanent injunction that his peaceful possession should not be disturbed by the defendant and his men. In the plaint it is set out that for the amount due to the defendant firm run in the name of Dhanalakshmi Timbers and payable by the V.M. Timbers run in the name of the plaintiff's wife and as per the request made by the defendant, the plaintiff executed the sale deed on 24.8.2001 conve...
The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad476; 2004(3)CTC686; (2004)3MLJ577
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants in O.S.No. 9173 of 1984 on the file of Sixth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants in the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein-Union of India represented by Embarkation Commandant filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82,320 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:The plaintiff was the consignee of two packages containing Electric Firing Units and Capacitors consigned to 29 E D Air Force Station, Bangalore. The above consignment was shipped in good order and condition by the High Commission of India, Supply Wing, India House, Aldwych, London WC 2. The consignment was shipped in apparent good order and condition from the Port of London to the Port of Madras by Vessel S.S. Vishva Siddhi which arrived at the Port of Madras on 17.8.1979. The consignment was covered under Bill of Lading ...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)452; [2004]270ITR394(Mad)
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, that the Insurance Company is not entitled to deduct the Income Tax at source, and further direction directing to deposit the entire amount, has challenged the same by way of this Revision.2. The first respondent in this revision as claimant, has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 311 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Erode for compensation for the permanent disability, said to have been sustained by him, in the road accident. After contest, on 8.9.99, compensation was ordered, directing some of the respondents, including the Insurance Company, to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The claimant, not satisfied with the amount awarded, had preferred an appeal before this Court in A.A.O. 211/2000 and this Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/-, thereby the claim h...
Arulmighu Mahalakshmi Temple, Rep. by the Executive Officer Vs. M.S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ61
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dated 31.12.2003 in Application No. 5338 of 2000 in C.S. No. 703 of 1999 passed by the learned single Judge. 2. The respondents herein have filed C.S. No. 703 of 1999 under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to dispose of the suit schedule mentioned property by entering into joint a development agreement and pay off the liabilities of the trust. The suit is filed contending that the subject matter of the suit absolutely vests with the trust, and the respondents, who are the trustees, are entitled to deal with and dispose of the same in the best interest of the trust. It is further contended therein that the trust property is secular in character, and the same can be used for secular purposes, and it is outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter called as the Act). It is further contended that the respondents/plaintiffs have raised a dispute unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »