Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 14 of about 141 results (0.029 seconds)

Feb 11 1998 (HC)

Packirisamy Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Sri Ranganathan Perumal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-11-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ42

s.s. subramani, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiffs in o.s.nos. 223 and 230 of 1990, on the file of district munsif's court, karaikal.2. both the above suits were jointly tried and a common judgment was pronounced by the district munsif on 14.12.1992.3. 223 of 1990 is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by them on the allegation that the property is situated in resurvey no. 146/11, in t.r. pattanam. resurvey no. 146/ 12 is a temple tank belonging to the defendant-temple and there is a live fence east to west separating the properties, namely, the tank of the defendant-temple and the land of the plaintiffs. the fence has been in existence for several decades and there are also several trees. the property in question is being looked after by the second plaintiff and plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as owners. it is their case that they purchased this property as per sale deed dated 12.11.1954 from one govinda pillai and his wife govindammal. it is seen that their predecessors were also in possession of the said property, and it is their case that possession was with them for not less than 100 years. it is their further case that they used to cut and remove portia trees situated within the schedule property, as their mode of employment. when some trees were cut prior to the institution of the suit, defendant-temple .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1998 (HC)

N.K.T. National Girls Higher Secondary School Represented by Its Secre ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-28-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ11

orders.s. subramani, j.1. petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the respondents 6 to 12 or their agents, servants or men from inviting applications for admission to the petitioner-school, and respondents 13 and 14 from admitting students to the petitioner-school and also forbear the respondents 6 to 12 from appointing or dismissing teaching or non-teaching staff in the petitioner-school, 13th respondent-college and 14th respondent-boys high school.2. 15th respondent is a society registered under the societies registration act. the same was founded by shri n.k. thirumalachariar, a leading member of this bar. shri c.r. pattabiraman, a doyen of the bar was also one of the founders of the society. the society was formed with the object of establishing educational, cultural, artistic and welfare institutions, and managing n.k. thirumalachariar national boys' high school triplicane and n.k. thirumalachariar national girls' higher secondary school, triplicane. in course of time, the society established the national college of education for women and the society has been administering all these three educational institutions well. these institutions have been catering to the lower and middle class residents in and around triplicane. the society admits patrons, life members, honorary members and ordinary members. it has framed its own bye-laws and regulations which were revised and amended in 1992 in order to bring it in consonance with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1998 (HC)

P. Chenchu Ramiah Vs. A.M. Noohu Nachia and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-30-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ324

orders. subramani, j.1. first defendant in o.s. no. 5628 of 1998, on the file of iv assistant judge, city civil court, madras, is the revision petitioner. the revision has been filed under article 227 of the constitution of india.2. first respondent herein filed the simple suit o.s. no. 5628 of 1998, for injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit who are two in number, from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. in the plaint, it was stated that she purchased the property on 5.2.1966 and that she is enjoying the same. it is also stated therein that she is staying at her native place at thanjavur. property tax, water tax and government dues in respect of the property are paid by representative of plaintiff in the name of plaintiff, and that she had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property. it is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants are rank trespassers, and, taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, defendants are trying to grab the suit property and in that process, defendants, on 18.8.1998 attempted to dispossess the representative of plaintiff and her from the suit property with a view to take control of the same. but, because of the timely intervention of the representative of plaintiff, the evil design of defendants did not materialise. subsequently, defendants and their henchmen are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and her staff from the suit property by resorting to illegal means. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1998 (HC)

Mohamed Gani Vs. Habibullah and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-1998

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ609

k. p. sivasubramaniam, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned subordinate judge, madurai in 60 of 1985 in reversing that of the learned district munsif, thirumangalam in 936 of 1983. the plaintiff is the appellant in the present second appeal.2. the plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to remove the obstruction to the windows on the plaintiff's property, on the north side or for the court itself to direct the court staff to carry out the said direction, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's putting up upper floor in his property and putting up windows on the north side of his property and for mandatory injunction directing the removal of the newly put up common wall on the north side of the plaintiff's property and to restore the common pathway in between the plaintiff's property and defendants' property.3. according to the plaintiff the property situated at door no. 2/77 of vilacherry village belongs to the plaintiff while the defendants are his neighbours as well as his close relatives. on the east and north of the plaintiff's property, the house and the cattleshed of the defendants are situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property. the house of the defendants is constructed on the wall belonging to the plaintiff with the permission of plaintiff's family. on the northern side of the plaintiff's house, there is window of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1998 (HC)

K. Jamal Maideen Vs. the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC355

order1. heard. 2. in the above writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue transport permit, enabling the petitioner to transport the clay from survey no. 583/3 in kara (east) village, perambalur taluk, tiruchirapalli district, during the currency of the lease. 3. in brief, the petitioner was granted a lease to mine fire clay over an extent of 2.71 acres in of karai (east) village, perambalur taluk, tiruchirapalli district by industries (mma-2) department dated 21.2.1990. 4. clause 8 of the above g.o. contemplates the petitioner to set up his own industry within two years from the date of the above g.o., failing which, the lease would lapse. clause 11 of the g.o. makes it clear that the terms and conditions stated in the above g.o. dated 21.2.1990 are subject to further modification, addition or alteration, as may be included in the lease deed and finalised. in pursuance of the said g.o., a lease deed was also entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 18.4.1990. which do not contain the condition imposed under clause 8 of the g.o. 5. admittedly, the petitioner had not set up his industry within two years from the date of the said g.o. therefore, the first respondent passed the proceedings dated 1.2.1993 and requested the petitioner to inform whether he had set up an industry as per the said g.o dated 21.2.1990. apprehending refusal of the transport permit, the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1998 (HC)

S. Khader Mohideen Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-1998

Reported in : [2001]248ITR554(Mad)

orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. in this writ petition, the writ petitioner, who is a forest contractor seeks the refund of a sum of rs. 49,428 retained as tax for the assessment year 1991-92 by the first respondent which amount had been retained by the department by invoking section 44ac of the act as it stood then. the validity of the said provision was upheld by the supreme court in the case of union of india v. a. sanyasi rao : [1996]219itr330(sc) , except to the extent, the non obstante clause in section 44ac excluded the provisions of sections 28 to 45c.2. the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the ruling of the apex court and the amount held has to be recalculated after applying the provisions of sections 28 to 43c. learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the section itself is inapplicable to the petitioner as the auction is not of any goods but is only of the right to gather the forest produce within the forest. the auction referred to is in respect of forest goods and can only be in the nature of an agreement to sell. such an agreement it was submitted, falls outside the ambit of section 44ac.3. learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, relied upon section 44ac(1)(b) which refers to-'the right to receive any goods of the nature specified in column (2) of the table below ...'4. there is no dispute about the fact that the forest produce is mentioned in the table and the right exercised by the petitioner in relation to that forest produce .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1998 (HC)

J. Madan Lal, Proprietor Milan Jothi (Garden Retail Shop) Vs. P.K.M.S. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-21-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)CTC727

order1. the revision petitioner is the tenant in of 1993 on the file of the rent controller, madras and the respondent in of 1995 on the file of the appellate authority, madras. the respondent is the landlord before the rent controller in that proceedings and the appellant before the appellate authority; in this order, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be called as the landlord and the tenant. the landlord filed an application before rent controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owner's occupation of a non-residential building falling under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, hereinafter called as the act. the claim of the landlord was hotly contested by the tenant and ultimately the rent controller was inclined to dismiss the landlord's petition for eviction. it appears that the learned rent controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition as one falling under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act is not maintainable and instead the eviction should have been sought for on the ground falling under section 10(3)(c) of the act. this order of dismissal is challenged by the landlord and it is now pending on the file of the appellate authority as of 1995. in the appeal the landlord filed of 1998 to amend the pleadings by adding section 10(3)(c) alongside section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. that petition was ordered on merits and the correctness of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1998 (HC)

Rohini Dairy Farm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-1998

Reported in : [2000]244ITR427(Mad)

janarthanam, j. 1. the assessee--rohini dairy farm--is an unregistered firm. during the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee claimed that it had taken loans for the purpose of development of land and repaid the same with interest, after the sale of the land. loans were taken from seven named persons, totalling to a sum of rs. 42,000.2. the assessing officer disbelieved the version of the assessee about the loans and the capacity of the loanees. hence, the amount was computed as the assessee's income and penalty proceedings were initiated.3. the assessing officer, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, levied penalty on the ground that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory and the credits were held not genuine. consequently, he levied penalty, quantifying it at a sum of rs. 20,536.4. the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals)-iv, madras (for short 'the cit').5. before the commissioner of income-tax, the assessee reiterated the contention that the assessee had filed confirmation letters from most of thecreditors and some of them on being examined, deposed to the effect that they have advanced loans to the assessee. therefore, the assessee contended that it had discharged the primary onus placed upon it. merely because the authorities did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee and disbelieved the version relatable to the loans, there was no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivam and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-28-1998

Reported in : [2000]242ITR76(Mad)

n.v. balasubramanian, j.1. at the instance of the department, the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following two questions of , law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for our consideration :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry used for drilling borewells are entitled for special depreciation at 30 per cent. ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is right in granting the investment allowance under section 32a(2)(b) on the rigs and compressors ?' 2. the assesses is a registered firm and the assessee carries on business in drilling borewells with the help of rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry. the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83 claimed depreciation at 30 per cent. on rigs and compressors on the ground that they constitute an integral part of the lorry. the assessee has also claimed investment allowance on rigs and compressors under section 32a of the act. the income-tax officer rejected both the claims preferred by the assessee and completed the assessment. the assessee preferred an appeal to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), following the order of the appellate tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1980-81, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1998 (HC)

Nanjappan Vs. Cauvery Gounder and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-03-1998

Reported in : 1998(1)CTC158; (1998)IMLJ699

order1. the above c.m.s.a. is directed against the order passed 10 of 1985, on the file of the learned ii additional district judge,salem.2. the appellant herein was adjudicated as insolvent in of 1980. the properties of the appellant were brought to sale by the official receiver, who is the ii respondent herein, on the basis of the details given by one of the creditors. after publication of proclamation of sale on 31.3.1981, the second respondent conducted the sale of the properties of the insolvent on 25.8.1981 in which items 1 and 3 of the petition schedule properties were sold. the first respondent, one of the creditors of the insolvent, was the successful bidder. the insolvent filed an application in 295 of 1981 for setting aside the sale held by the second respondent. the lower court dismissed thesame on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation. as against the said order, the appellant filed appeal in of 1983 on the file of the learned district judge, salem, who also concurred with the findings of the lower court and dismissed the same. aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the revision in 535 of 1985. the learned judge in the order dated 15.2.1988 dismissed that revision, the order of which has been reported in nanjappan v. cauvery gounder : (1989)1mlj480 . meanwhile, the sale deed was executed on 25.3.1983 and the same was registered on 1.6.1983. it is not in dispute that the document was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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