Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 10 of about 141 results (0.033 seconds)

Apr 03 1998 (HC)

V. Chandraprakasa Nadar and Co. and P. Velayuda Nadar and Sons Vs. Com ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-1998

Reported in : [2000]244ITR298(Mad)

janarthanam, j.1. in these actions, the parties are distinct and different. but none the less, the question arising for consideration in these actions are so inter linked in such a way as is not possible to decide the one without the other. desirable it is, in this view of the matter, to dispose of them by a common order.2. the factual matrix relevant for arriving at a decision in relation to the question under reference in the tax case may now be briefly stated :3. the assessee, v. chandraprakasa nadar and company, trichy, is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which the accounting year ended on december 4, 1973, being the date on which the firm was dissolved. the firm dealt with hardware, paints, cement and building materials on retail basis. the closing stock as per books on december 4, 1973, amounted to rs, 9,27,459.66.4. the assessee filed an original return admitting income of rs. 91,890 followed by a second revised return admitting an income of rs. 2,78,235 inclusive of an addition of rs. 1,78,075 towards valuation of closing stock.5. originally, the assessee valued the closing stock at cost as hitherto been done, but in the light of the decision of this court in the case of a l. a. firm v. cit : [1976]102itr622(mad) , the closing stock was valued at the market rate, which resulted in an addition of rs. 1,78,075 towards the closing stock in the revised return filed.6. the income-tax officer accepted the valuation of the closing stock as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1998 (HC)

M. Viswanathan Vs. the District Collector

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-1998

Reported in : (1998)1MLJ690

orders.s. subramani, j.1. petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent dated 9.10.1997 in his proceedings na. ka. c3/100521, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to renew the 'c' form licence of the petitioner.2. the petitioner is a lessee of a property, wherein he is conduct a cinema theatre by name 'muthiah talkies' at cuddalore. it is his case that he was exhibiting cinematography exhibition in the said theatre without any break and he has obtained the licence, the period of last licence was expired on 17.9.1991. before the expiry of licence, he applied for renewal of the 'c' form licence to the respondent with all necessary certificates. but no order has been passed by the respondent on the application for renewal of c form licence not 'e' permit has been granted pending disposal of the above application. the petitioner was therefore, compelled to move this court in w.p. no. 15076 of 1991. as per order dated 29.10.1991, learned judge of this court directed the respondent to pass final orders on the renewal application within ten days, and if no order could be passed within that time, the authorities were directed to issue 'e' permit. in spite of that direction, no order has been passed by the respondent on the renewal application and they started issuing 'e' permit every month. on 18.9.1996, that was also refused to be given. it is said that chief electrical inspector's certificate and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1998 (HC)

Jayaverchand Vs. Balan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-1998

Reported in : (1998)1MLJ701

orders.s. subramani, j.1. landlord in r. co.p. no. 2857 of 1990, on the file of xvi judge, court of small causes, madras, is the revision petitioner.2. petitioner herein filed r. co.p. no. 2857 of 1990 against the respondent for eviction. an ex parte order was passed on 3.5.1991. the matter came up for first hearing on 20.12.1990. since service could not be completed, it was adjourned, and the rent controller ordered fresh notice. rent controller also ordered substituted service by publication, returnable by 30.4.1991 on 30.4.1991, respondent was called. since he was absent, he was set ex parte, and the matter was posted to 3.5.1991 for ex parte evidence. on 3.5.1991, evidence was taken and an order of eviction was passed.3. alleging that he came to know about the ex parte order after a long time, respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, as m.p. no. 110 of 1992. he did not file any application to condone de-lay even though the rules provide that such application has to be filed within 30 days from the date of decree. respondent relied on the date of knowledge and said that the application was filed within 30 days from that date.4. rent controller took cognizance of the same and ordered notice to be served on the petitioner. neither the notice was served on the petitioner, nor the respondent took notice. consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.5. petitioner sold not only the property in question to messrs. shenoy nagar benefit funds limited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1998 (HC)

Mangai Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Narayana Rao and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ183

orders. jagadeesan, j.1. the first respondent in c.r.p. no. 1413 of 1997 is the landlord. he has leased out the property to the second respondent in the said c.r.p. he has filed r.c.o.p. no. 30 of 1989 on the file of the rent controller, tirunelveli to evict the petitioner herein on the ground that the second respondent had subleased the property to the petitioner and the petitioner being a sub-lessee without the consent of the landlord, is liable to be evicted. it is the case of the petitioner that she is closely related to the second respondent and she was residing with her family with the second respondent in the petition premises. the first respondent had to shift to bombay in january, 1989 and hence on 21.12.1988, she along with the second respondent met the first respondent and requested for the occupation of the building by the petitioner and the first respondent agreed for the same and she is residing as a tenant in the premises. the rent controller as well as the appellate authority found that the petitioner is a sub-lessee and ordered eviction. as against the said order of the lower authorities, the] present revision has been filed.2. the petitioner in c.r.p. no. 1414 of 1997 filed r.c.o.p. no. 39 of 1989 seeking permission to deposit the rent into court, since the landlord refused to receive the rent. the rent controller found that the petitioner is not the tenant and as such the application filed by her is not maintainable. the appellate authority also concurred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1998 (HC)

Arumuga Naicker (Died) and ors. Vs. T.C. Baladhandayuthapani and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ395

orders.s. subramani, j.1. tenant originally filed this revision, and after his death, his legal representatives have been brought on record, and they have, further prosecuted the revision.2. eviction was ordered by the authorities below on the ground that the building is required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.3. i heard this revision and dismissed the same as per my order dated 18.9.1996. against my decision, the matter was taken before the honorable supreme court, and before the honorable supreme court, a submission was made by the revision petitioners that during the pendency of the revision, the original landlord has sold the property to a third party and the subsequent sale will have material bearing in the result of the revision petition. it was also submitted before the honorable supreme court that the tenants came to know about the same only after the disposal of the revision. when such submission was made, their lordships of the supreme court held thus:learned counsel states that during the pendency of the revision petition before the high court, the respondent/landlord sold the property in dispute. according to the learned counsel, with the sale of the property, the ground on which the eviction was based automatically became non-est. learned counsel further states that he came to know about the sale after the judgment of the high court. in the circumstances, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the high court and bring the facts to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1998 (HC)

Ms. Nivedita, Represented by Mother Ms. Asha Raja Kumar and ors Vs. So ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ465

orders.s. subramani, j.1. this revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india. an application was filed before the debts recovery tribunal, chennai, by south indian bank ltd. against five respondents. the 1st respondent is a private limited company. respondents 3 and 5 are man and wife and respondents 2 and 4 are their sons. for the purpose of giving financial assistance to the company, the 3rd respondent in the o.a., along with respondents 2, 4 and 5 executed mortgages for securing the loan. when default was committed, the application was filed before the debts recovery tribunal, for recovery of an amount of nearly rs. 66 lakhs, with future interest and costs. the said original application is pending consideration before the said tribunal, while so, an application was also filed by the revision petitioners herein who are the younger children of respondents 4 and 6 herein that the mortgage executed by their father is not for necessity or consideration and the same is without taking into consideration the benefit of the family. according to them, the property offered as security is a joint family property and the mortgage is not binding on them, and their shares are not liable to be proceeded with. they wanted to get themselves impleaded in the original application and to have their rights adjudicated in the case. by the impugned order, the tribunal rejected it, which is challenged in this revision under article 227 of the constitution.2. the tribunal held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1998 (HC)

Periyammal Vs. Valarmathi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ634

s.s. subramani, j.1. i will first deal with the second appeal.2. plaintiff in o.s.no.677 of 1989 on the file of district munsif's court, perambalur, is the appellant in the second appeal. she filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from starting any rice mill or flour mill. according to her, installation of such a mill will cause grave nuisance and also affect her health. it is said that she is residing in ward no. 1, house no. 103-c, in vadakkalur village, perambalur taluk, and the defendant is making arrangements to install a flour mill with 25 h.p. within a distance of 25 feet. according to her, if it is allowed, she will be put to serious hardship.3. in the written statement filed by the defendant, the above allegations were denied. she only said that due to personal animosity, plaintiff has filed the suit. she has also said that the plaintiff is not residing in the address mentioned in the plaint, and the rice mill is proposed to be installed at a place far away from the plaintiff's property. she has also said that in between the proposed mill and the socalled plaintiff's house, there are two big walls having a width of 1 1/2 feet each. there cannot be any question of sound pollution or any annoyance to the plaintiff. she prayed for dismissal of the suit.4. the trial court, as per judgment dated 30.7.1990, dismissed the suit. for that purpose, it relied on the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced, by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1998 (HC)

idcol Cement Ltd., Represented by Its Senior Deputy Manager (Legal) Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-27-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ654

orders.s. subramani, j.1. this revision is under article 227 of the constitution of india filed by the first defendant in o.s.no.140 of 1998, on the file of 18th assistant city civil court, madras.2. first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration declaring that the first defendant is not entitled to invoke bank guarantee nos.362/91-92 and 363/91-92, dated 5.3.1992 and extended from time to time upto 15.12.1997 with claim period upto 14.1.1998, and also for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the second defendant and bank from paying any sum covered under the said bank guarantee.3. it is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and first defendant entered into a contract on 10.4.1992 as supplier and purchaser wherein plaintiff agreed to supply plant and equipment and mandatory spares therefor and incidental services like supervision of erection, startup, commissioning, conducting performance trails and demonstration of guaranteed performance, training of personnel, etc., under i.c.b. package no.03 particularly consisting of raw material drying and grinding, cement meal continuous blending and kiln feed, clinker manufacturing fuel (coal) drying and grinding, slag drying and grinding, cement grinding, cement and also mixing and cement storage and packing plants and mandatory spare parts for modernisation/substantial expansion of cement project of the first defendant. pursuant to the agreement and in terms therefore plaintiff has executed two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1998 (HC)

M. Sundaram Alias Vettukati Sundaram Vs. R. Thangasamy Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-29-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ3

orders.s. subramani, j.1. petitioner is the defendant in o.s.no. 191 of 1997 on the file of the principal district, munsif, kuzhithurai. the respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction restraining the petitioner and others from interfering with his possession.2. according to the respondent/plaintiff he was in possession of the property from 1966 onwards and his possession is not liable to be disturbed by any one including the petitioner. he also filed for an appointment of a commissioner verified and report about the physical features of the suit property and the building situated therein, and to specifically note the details of the compound wall with the gate surrounding the suit property etc. in the plaint it is stated that there was earlier a suit in between the respondent and his elder brother arumuga nadar and his wife ponnachi in o.s.no. 640 of 1974. the suit was decreed declaring that arumuga nadar and his wife are entitled to 3/4th share in the property and the same is allowed to be divided and partitioned. a preliminary decree and a final decree were passed. an execution application was also filed and the property was also taken delivery through court. it is submitted in the plaint itself that the very same respondent filed o.s.no. 589 of 1978 for setting aside the decree in o.s.no. 640 of 1974 and the same was dismissed. an appeal was taken in a.s.no. 3 of 1978 which also met the same fate and the second appeal no. 1003 of 1988 is also admittedly dismissed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1998 (HC)

S. Gururajan and anr. Vs. P.M. Duraisamy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ7

s.s. subramani, j.1. the defendants in o.s.no. 329 of 1987 on the file of the ii additional district munsif, erode are the appellants. the suit filed by the plaintiff was to restore possession of the suit property to him and also for recovery of rs. 5,100 towards the value of the articles unauthorisedly removed by the defendants and for costs.2. in the body of the plaint, it is said that the defendants are the owners of the building in door no. 19, prakasam street, erode town. it is a lodging house consisting of several rooms and the plaintiff has taken room no. 212 on a monthly rent of rs. 120 and has been carrying on his banking business in that room. he was paying rent regularly.3. it is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants were trying to evict the plaintiff by illegal and unlawful means from june, july of 1983. he also filed a rent control application no. 8 of 1984 against the plaintiff for eviction, on the file of the rent controller, erode. the plaintiff also filed a counter and the case was adjourned from time to time. while the eviction petition was pending, the defendants gathered men and materials and successfully prevented the plaintiff from entering into the room on 30.8.1986.4. even though the plaintiff filed a petition before the police authorities, they advised the defendants to seek appropriate civil remedies for eviction and the said petition was closed. the plaintiff also presented a representation before the district collector that in spite .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //