Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 4 of about 141 results (0.027 seconds)

Feb 18 1998 (HC)

A. Chinnarajan Vs. N. S. Subbaiyah and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1998

Reported in : 1998(1)CTC375

order1. this revision under article 227 of the constitution of india, is filed by the first defendant in o.s.no.100 of 1997, on the file of sub court, palni. two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff's and directing him to pay a sum of rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and sized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under or.20, rule 12, c.p.c., and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus:-first plaintiff is the son of late n.r.s. ramasamy chettiar. between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964. plaint schedule property was one of the items allotted to his father late n.r.s. ramasamy chettiar. it is not disputed that pursuant to the partition, ramasami chettiar had obtained absolute right and exclusive right over the same. it is seen that ramasami chettiar executed a will on 30.1.1980, bequesthing all his properties to the second plaintiff herein, who is also the son of the first plaintiff. there was difference of opinion between first plaintiff and his father. the will was cancelled. the father began to deal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1998 (HC)

Palaniyappa Rice Mill and ors. Vs. P.A.A. Malayandi Chettiar (Decd.) a ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-23-1998

Reported in : [2000]101CompCas203(Mad)

s. jagadeesan, j.1. the plaintiff, who lost before the trial court, is the appellant herein. the plaintiff filed the suit, o. s. no. 16 of 1979, on the file of the district judge, pudukkottai, for recovery of a sum of rs. 11,125 due under two promissory notes, viz., exhibits a-1 and a-2, executed by the defendant for a sum of rs. 30,000 and rs. 10,000, respectively. the defendant had paid certain amounts and the last payment of rs. 4,000 was sent on october 16, 1975, by demand draft and credited on october 18, 1975, and this will constitute a payment on account of the debt payable by the person liable to pay and hence under section 19 of the new limitation act, the suit filed within three years from october 18, 1975, is within time. the date of the plaint is october 17, 1978, and the same was filed on october 18, 1978. the claim of the plaintiff is disputed by the first respondent herein, by filing a written statement. in the written statement, the first respondent herein has given the details with regard to several payments made and also admitted the last payment sent by demand draft on october 16, 1975, and as such the last payment is to be construed as if made on october 16, 1975, and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. the date of encashment is not the criteria and it will not furnish an extended period of limitation.2. on the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court had framed three issues which are as follows :'1. whether the discharge pleaded is true ?2. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1998 (HC)

Vorion Chemicals and Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commis ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-12-1998

Reported in : [2000]246ITR638(Mad)

s. jagadeesan, j.1. the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent in his proceedings f. no. i/december, 1985, dated march 11, 1988.2. the petitioner purchased the property situated in r. s. no. 126/5 (part) under a registered sale deed dated august 9, 1985, for a total consideration of rs. 32,20,000 from one r.v. sarojini devi. the vendor obtained the certificate under section 230a of the income-tax act, 1961. the property consists of 12 grounds and 494 sq. ft. with a building of 2,200 sq. ft. in the ground floor and 800 sq. ft. in the first floor. the land attracts the purview of the land ceiling act and the petitioner has to meet the proposed land acquisition proceedings arising out of the urban land ceiling regulation act. the vendor is in any way not responsible to clear the proceedings that would arise under the land ceiling act. keeping all these in mind, the value of the property has been fixed at rs. 32,20,000 which represents the fair market value.3. the first respondent issued a notice dated july 10, 1986, calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents relating to the purchase of the property. the petitioner was served with another letter from the district valuation officer, income-tax department, madras-6, on july 2, 1986. the district valuation officer requested the petitioner to furnish certain documents to him on or before july 14, 1986, on the ground that the first respondent had requested him to value the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1998 (HC)

A. Chinnaraja Vs. N.S. Subbaiyah and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ370

orders.s. subramani, j.1. this revision under article 227 of the constitution of india, is filed by the first defendant in o.s. no. 100 of 1997, on the file of sub court, palani. two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiffs, and directing him to pay a sum of rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and seized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under order 20, rule 12, c.p.c, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his man from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus : first plaintiff is the son of late n.r.s. ramasamy chettiar. between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964. plaint schedule property was one of the items allotted to his father late n.r.s. ramasamy chettiar. it is not disputed that pursuant to the partition, ramasami chettiar had obtained absolute right and exclusive right over the same. it is seen that ramasami chettiar executed a will on 30.1.1980, bequeathing all his properties to the second plaintiff herein, who is also the son of the first plaintiff. there was difference of opinion between first plaintiff and his father. the will was cancelled. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1998 (HC)

E. Jeevadhas and anr. Vs. G. Babu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ526

s.s. subramani, j.1. both these second appeals arise out of the same suit in o.s.no. 392 of 1978 on the file of additional district munsif, kuzhithurai. in s.a.no. 2226 of 1983 the appellants are defendants 5 and 6, and in s.a.no. 59 of 1984, the appellants are defendants 1 and 2. the description of parties will be according to their rank in the suit.2. plaintiffs two in number filed the suit for declaration of their title and possession and also for partition. the plaint schedule properties are three in number. item no. 1 is northern-most 1 acre, 32 cents, which is 1/3rd of the total extent in s.no. 4666 of mehtukummal village. item no. 2 is another 1/3rd in s.no. 4667, in the northern 50 cents. item no. 3 is the eastern-most 96 cents, which is 1/3rd portion of s.no. 4668. all these properties originally belonged to one mallan neelakantan's family by name pilloor house. from that family a mortgage was executed in favour of one padmanabban thaveethu as per ex.a-1 dated 4.1.1064 m.e. the mortgagee left his five sons to inherit his right over the said property and they are poulu, menuel, manas, nallathampi and arumanayakam, each having 1/5th share in the property. it is the further case of the plaintiffs that two of the mortgagees viz. nallathampi and arumanyakam, who had 2/5th share in the mortgage right executed a mortgage in respect of their share in favour of one madan isaac and yovan simpson as per ex.a-2, dated 26.8.1101 m.e. both these mortgagees came into possession and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1998 (HC)

M/S. Gordon Woodroffe and Company Limited, Uk, Rutland House, 44, Maso ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-24-1998

Reported in : [1999]97CompCas582(Mad); 1998(3)CTC589

order1. all these eight appeals arise out of the orders passed by the company law board, principal bench, new delhi in two company petitions, namely, c.p.no. 45 of 1993 and c.p.no. 16 of 1994, dated 12.5.1998.2. c.m.a.nos. 1071, 1207, 1208 and 1210 of 1998 are preferred against the order in c.p.no.16 of 1994, while c.m.a.nos.1072, 1073, 1149 and 1209 are preferred against the order in c.p.no.45 of 1993. the main dispute relates to the affairs of m/s. gordon woodroffe & company limited (gwl), a sick company now before the board for industrial and financial reconstruction (bifr) in c.m.a.no.1071 of 1998, m/s. gordon woodroffe & company limited, u.k. the petitioner in c.p.no.16 of 1994 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1207 of 1998, kishore rajaram chhabria, madan dwarakdas chhabria and rajaram dwarakdas chhabria, the respondents 4 to 6 in c.p.no.16 of 1994 are the appellants. in c.m.a.no.1208 of 1998, tracstar investments (p) ltd., the second respondent in c.p.no.16 of 1994 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1210 of 1998, shoe specialities (p) ltd., the third respondent in c.p.no.16 of 1994 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1072 of 1998, m/s. shaw wallace & co. limited., the second respondent in c.p.no.45 of 1993 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1073 of 1998, m/s. gordon woodroffe ltd., the first respondent in c.p.no.45 of 1993 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1149 of 1998, tracstar investments (p) ltd., the petitioner in c.p.no.45 of 1993 is the appellant. in c.m.a.no.1209 of 1998, shoe .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1998 (HC)

K.M. Radha Krishna Chettiar and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-27-1998

Reported in : [2000]244ITR374(Mad)

order under section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961 by its petition under section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961, the asses-see has soug'ht for waiver of interest and penalties in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. 2. on a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an action under section 132 of the income-tax act, 1961, consequent to which the assessee had filed returns of income admitting' unaccounted incomes arising to it. since the assessments for the abovesaid assessment years were all completed after action under section 132, i see no reason to entertain the present petition filed under section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961. 3. in the circumstances, the petitions are rejected. (sd.) n. rangachary,commissioner of income-taxt. n.-v, madras-34.'hence the above writ petition.15. the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings dated january 28, 1988, on the ground that the returns of income admitting the unaccounted income were filed only after the search conducted in the petitioner's premises under section 132 of the act.16. the respondents state that a search was conducted by the income-tax authorities under section 132 of the act on march 29, 1983, and thereafter a notice under section 148 was issued to the petitioner on march 23, 1985, for reopening the assessment for the years 1979-80 to 1982-83. it is only thereafter, that the petitioner, by its letter dated december 31, 1985, offered to have an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1998 (HC)

Sambandasami Mudaliar Vs. Ramaswamy Mudaliar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-01-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ497

k.p. sivasubramaniam, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned principal subordinate judge, cuddalore, in a.s. no. 38 of 1984 dated 25.6.1985, confirming the judgment of the learned district munsif, cuddalore, in o.s. no. 1206 of 1980 dated 21.1.1984.2. the first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. the plaintiffs filed the suit for holding that the suit mortgagee created on 14.6.1972 be redeemed and discharged on the plaintiff's depositing a sum of rs. 900 and ordering delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiffs through court.3. according to the plaintiffs the property belonged to the plaintiffs and the third defendant, the first plaintiff being the father and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the third defendant being his sons. on 14.6.1972 the plaintiffs and the third defendant had executed a simple mortgage in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property for a sum of rs. 4,500. even though the document recites that the transaction was a simple mortgage, the intention of the parties was only to create a usufructuary mortgage and the first defendant agreed to lend money if he was put in possession of hypothecate. plaintiffs and the third defendant agreed for this. as the stamp duty payable for usufructuary mortgage was far higher than the stamp duty payable for a simple mortgage, the first defendant himself suggested that it was less expensive to style the document as a simple mortgage and hence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1998 (HC)

Mohan Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Klen and Marshall's Manufacturers and Ex ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-05-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ84

orders.s. subramani, j.1. all these revisions arise from the same suit, namely, o.s. no. 6522 of 1997, on the file of xviith assistant judge, city civil court, madras. first three revisions are filed by the first defendant in the suit and c.r.p. no. 2573 of 1998 is filed by 2nd defendant in that suit.2. relevant facts may be summarised thus: under the world bank scheme, the madhya pradesh state electricity board, who is the petitioner in c.r.p. no. 2573 of 1998, invited tenders for supply of certain conductors to draw transmission lines. five companies formed themselves into a consortium and the plaintiff in the suit was appointed as their agent. in that capacity, it received supply orders from the board and received an advance of rs. 41/2 crores. plaintiff also executed a performance guarantee issued by bank at bombay. but plaintiff was not in a position to procure raw material to perform the contract in any manner. since it is world bank project, time for performance was important. on 17.7.1997, a meeting was convened, and it was agreed in that meeting that plaintiff must complete the supply by december, 1997. it is the case of the first defendant, who is the petitioner in c.r.p.nos.2383 to 2385 of 1998, that it expressly agreed that if it was unable to deliver the goods by december, 1997, the electricity board could pursue the matter by whatever method it could. plaintiff failed to make supply even till august, 1997 and, therefore, the electricity board placed direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Match Industries (B-unit) and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1998

Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Mad)22

n. v. balasubramanian, j.tc no. 941 of 1985 relates to the assessee, the yennarkey r. ravindran family trust, doing business known as standard match industries, sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77. t.c. no. 161 of 1985 relates to the assessee m/s ashok match industries (b-unit), sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77 and t.c. no. 1457 of 1985 relates to another assessee, m/s hariram match industries, sivakasi, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. in compliance with the directions of this court in t.c.p. no. 278 of 1983 dt. 21-2-1984 in the case of the yennarkey r. ravindran family trust, sivakasi the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the business of m/s ashok match industries (b-unit) run by sankaralingam. and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of assessing officer as such but should be assessed on each beneficiary individually?'3. in the case of m/s ashok match industries (b-unit), sivakasi, the following questions of law have been referred to in pursuance of the directions of this court :' 1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the business of m/s ashok match industries (b-unit) run by sankaralingam and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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