Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
Palani Municipal Council, Through Its Commissioner Vs. C. Balasubraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC121
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The respondent bid for grant of lease for the shop No. 25 in Palani Bus Stand belonging to the appellant, for the period from December 1983 to March, 1986. The respondent's bid was the highest and the lease was confirmed in his favour. The lease period expired on 31.3.1986. Even thereafter, the respondent continued in possession. The appellant filed O.S.No. 14 of 1989 for recovery of arrears of rent till March, 1986. The respondent vacated the said shop on August, 1986. The appellant filed O.S.No. 372 of 1989, for the amounts due from April, 1986 to August, 1986.2. The respondent resisted the said suit on the ground that the appellant should have included the claim for the amounts due from April, 1986 to August, 1986 in the earlier suit itself (i.e.) O.S.No. 14 of 1989 and the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C.3. The trial Court, decreed the suit on the ground that after 31.3.1986, the respondent was like a te...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thayal Nayagi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Railway, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ453
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.2.2003. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant was a licensee of railway land along with other licensees. Most of the original licensees died and third parties are illegally occupying the plots in question. In some cases though the original licensees are occupying the plots for which licenses were given, the period of licenses has long expired and had not been renewed. Hence such persons are unauthorised occupants occupying the plots without any right. 4. The learned single Judge in his judgment has hence rightly set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, Trichirapalli. We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned single Judge and fully agree with the reasoning given, which we are not repeating. 5. The appellant was only a licensee of the plot in question and it is well settled that a licensee has no right vide Section 60 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannatti @ Ramasamy Gounder and Gopal Vs. Anai Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad461; 2005(1)CTC540; (2005)1MLJ465
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners herein, who have filed the suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 572 of 2002 for interim injunction, which was granted exparte by the trial court on 10-10-2002, till 01-11-2002. On 20-10-2002, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 682 of 2002 for police aid, which was dismissed by the trial court by its common order dated 22-08-2003 along with I.A. No. 572 of 2002 for interim injunction, however, this revision is filed only against the order of dismissal of the application for police aid. 2. Both sides have not let in either oral or documentary evidence before the trial court. On 10-10-2002, the trial court granted exparte interim injunction in I.A. No. 572 of 2002 till 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel and filed counter in the said I.A. No. 572 of 2002 in I.A. No. 682 of 2002. It was stated that on 11-10-2002, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: [2005]274ITR117(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rent receipts derived by the assessee company from letting out of properties should be assessed under the head 'business' thereby allowing the expenses incurred for letting out of properties as business expenditure?' 2. The assessment year involved in this case is 1987-88. The assessee is a company deriving, inter alia, rental income from the properties. In the assessment proceedings for the said assessment year, the rental income derived by the assessee company was assessed under the head 'House Property', which was objected to by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the said authority allowed the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Munusamy Gounder and anr. Vs. Sadasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC506; (2005)1MLJ584
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengleput in A.S.No. 11 of 1993 dated 14.10.1993, the defendants in O.S.No. 6 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, have filed this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff-in-brief is as follows :a. The suit properties originally belonged to one Govindasamy Gounder, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the same for over many years. All the revenue records were standing in the name of the said Govindasamy Gounder.b. On various dates during the year 1960, the said Govindasamy Gounder purchased the items 3 to 7 referred to in the plaint schedule from the first defendant by way of oral purchase and he obtained items 1 and 2 from is mother Periyamukkal Muniammal. Thereafter, the said Govindasamy Gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Ambujammal on 17.11.1961. The said Ambujammal enjoyed that pr...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Hire Purchase and Leasing Limited Rep. by Its Vice President, Mr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas343(Mad); 2005(1)CTC524; (2005)2MLJ8; [2005]62SCL245(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner carries on business of hire purchase and lease financing of machineries and other materials. The respondent company approached the petitioner with a request to provide hire purchase finance in relation to purchase of eight Compaq laptop computer and Compaq server. The petitioner, after discussion, accepted the request for hire purchase of eight laptop computers and one computer server and Hire Purchase agreement No. 52071 dated 26.9.2000 was entered into between them. The total hire purchase amount was Rs. 15,60,426 repayable in 24 monthly instalments, in which the first instalment commences from 26.9.2000 and the last instalment was on 26.8.2002. The respondent is liable to pay Rs. 65,018 for the first 23 instalments and Rs. 65,012 towards 24th instalment. The respondent also agreed to pay penal interest at the rate of 36% per annum for delayed payments. The suppliers of the assets raised invoices directly in the name of the petitioner. The res...
Tag this Judgment!G. Veera Raghavan Vs. K. Devanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC558
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present Revision is filed against the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for eviction of the respondents. Such application for eviction was filed on the ground that the premises were required by the present petitioner for his occupation and the tenant, namely Respondent No. 1, had sub-let the premises to Respondents 2 and 3 without the written consent of the landlord.2. According to the case of the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 became a tenant under the petitioner with effect from 1992. Tenancy was for the purpose of running a wet grinding business. Subsequently, without the written consent of the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 sub-let the premises to the respondents 2 and 3, who were carrying on business under the name and style 'M.S.R. Thirumana Seva Centre'. It has also been indicated that the petitioner requires ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ223Mad; (2005)2MLJ348
1. The above writ appeals have been filed praying to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.11.1996 made in W.P. Nos.2900, 2902, 8498 and 2901 of 1987.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, what comes to be known is that the appellants/petitioners have filed W.P. Nos.2900, 2902, 8498 and 2901 of 1987 for quashing the demand for payment of contribution under the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972 and to direct the respondent to forbear from making any demand under Section 2 of the said Act. Learned Single Judge, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petitions with costs, holding that the Insurance Companies are not establishments of the Central Government and hence they are liable to pay contribution under the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972. As against the said order, the above writ appeals are filed.3. The case of the appellants is that Government Companies are registered under the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise, Gold Control Appel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT753(Mad)
ORDER1. By this reference application under Sec. 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the applicant, viz. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai I Commissionerate, Chennai has framed the following question to be referred to us for out opinion : '1. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal right in ruling that the assessee can avail the exemption available in Notification or pay duty, when the input in question in wholly exempt from duty vide Notification No. 5/99 dated 28.2.1999 and when Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules 1944 is categorical in placing an embargo on taking of credit on inputs if the final product is wholly exempt from payment of duty?'2. Learned standing counsel for the department, Shri Veeraraghavan, has contended that since the raw material of the assessee had been exempted from duty vide Notification dated 28.2.1999, he could not claim MODVAT Credit. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that, in fact, duty was paid by the assessee's supplier despite the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Ammani Alias Rizwan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1923
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 16-7-2004 made in S. R. M. P. No. 659 of 2004 in S. C. No. 8/2003 by the Special Court, for exclusive trial of Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee and to quash the charges framed (as 4th charge) in S.C. No. 8/2003 or direct for the stay of the examination of the witnesses cited as L.Ws. 68 to 71 in the case, till the first respondent takes proper steps for withdrawal of the prosecution by the second respondent in Cr. No. 28/1999 and pending in C. C. No. 1/2001 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Alibagh, Raigad District, Maharashtra State.2. The petitioner would submit that he is the 6th accused in S.C. No. 8/2003 pending trial before the Special Court for the exclusive trial of Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee; that totally 17 accused are now facing trial in the said case; that according to the prosecution case,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »