Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 7 of about 141 results (0.032 seconds)

Nov 11 1998 (HC)

R. Asokan Vs. P. Muthusamy and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-11-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ341

orderk. govindarajan, j.1. the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in o.s. no. 356 of 1996 on the file of the sub court, namakkal, impleading the first defendant therein and the respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 3 to 5. the said suit was filed for partition of plaintiff's 1/12 share in survey no. 533 and for injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 5 from putting up any new or additional constructions in s. no. 533/1, in the plaint, it is specifically stated that in an extent of 3.33 acres and 23 cents, shown in the 'a' schedule to the deed of acknowledgment of partition, a partition was held between the plaintiff and the second defendant. according to the plaintiff/first respondent, a sub-division was effected. the land in survey no. 533 was sub-divided into three portions. survey no. 533/1 measuring 5 acres 56 cents belongs to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. it is also specifically stated that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 together completely hold survey no. 533/1, which is the suit property. the first defendant filed written statement and paid the court-fee for division of his share in the property. when the case was posted on 23.4.1998, the first and sixth defendants entered into compromise and a compromise memo was filed and it was recorded on 28.4.1998. immediately on 24.4.1998 the matter was posted for counter on 28.4.1998. on 28.4.1998 counter was filed and the matter was posted for orders on 30.4.1998, in the application filed by the petitioner/ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1998 (HC)

N.M. Kadamban Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Director of Survey and Settleme ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-20-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ614

orders.s. subramani, j.1. on 21.4.1998, i gave certain directions to respondent to deposit a sum of rs. 9,00,000 on or before 15.6.1998 for payment to petitioners. subsequently, on 28.8.1998, i passed further order after deposit was made. though deposit was made belatedly, i excused the delay.2. in my first order, dated 21.4.1998, i only tentatively fixed the rate of interest. on 28.8.1998, 1 held that petitioners herein are entitled to 15% interest. in paragraph 13 of my order dated 28.8.1998, i said,.in spite of the conduct of the respondent, i feel that interest of justice will be met if 15% interest is paid on the principal amount due to the petitioners. interest has to be calculated on the basis of instalments as and when it becomes payable. after arriving at the total figure, the amount already deposited by the respondent will have to be adjusted, and the balance will have to be arrived at on that basis. respondent is directed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner within one month....i wanted compliance to be reported to this court and the case was adjourned to 6.10.1998.3. both parties disputed the amount that is due to them. respondent filed a statement on 16.10.1998 where balance amount was shown as rs. 5,76,809.18. petitioners objected to the same and filed another statement along with memo as on 28.10.1998, a sum of rs. 6,70,766.60 is due to them. for verification of the said statement and also the objection statement filed by petitioners, government pleader .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1998 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. South India Metal Industries and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1998

Reported in : [2000]102CompCas111(Mad)

p.d. dinakaran, j.1. these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated march 29, 1984, made in o. s. no. 108 of 1978, on the file of the learned principal subordinate judge, pondicherry.2. a. s. no. 203 of 1985 was filed by the plaintiff in suit o. s. no. 108 of 1978, against the said decree dated march 29, 1984, disallowing interest of 9 per cent. on the principal amount of rs. 63,014.05, from the date of the plaint till the date of payment as well as against the decree of rs. 10,000 granted in favour of the third defendant in his counter-claim for a sum of rs. 94,140.3. a. s. no. 1302 of 1989 was filed by the third defendant against the disallowed counter-claim namely a sum of rs. 84,140 as well as against the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 70,140.60 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of payment.4. for the purpose of convenience the parties are described as per their rank in the suit.5. the brief facts of the case are stated as follows :defendants nos. 2 to 5 are partners of the first defendant firm. the third defendant is the managing partner. defendants nos. 1 to 5 availed of medium term loan of rs. 23,000 and cash credit for a sum of rs. 50,000, respectively. the sixth defendant stood as a guarantor for the said loan/ cash credit and also deposited the title deeds in respect of the properties mentioned in a schedule. thus the defendants were allowed to operate the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-10-1998

Reported in : [2000]246ITR549(Mad)

orderpowers of inspecting assistant commissionercatch note:the return filed by assessee showing a total income of rs. 42,83,750--on 8-11-1982, the income tax officer acting under section 144b forwarded a draft assessment order proposing to assess the income of rs. 48,64,844, as the enhancement of the income for the purpose of assessment was higher by more than rs. 1,00,000 as compared to the amount shown in the return--on 30-11-1982, the assessee gave its objection--the objections along with the draft assessment order were duly forwarded to the inspecting assistant commissioner on 7-1-1983--inspecting assistant commissioner after some discussions with the assessee, sent a memo to the income tax officer pointing out that certain aspects have not been properly considered, and requesting him to send another draft order on or before 31-1-1983--the income tax officer sent a second draft assessment order on 1-2-1983, proposing to assess a sum of rs. 50,68,515--on 26-2-1983, the inspecting assistant commissioner gave his directions and assessment was completed on a total income of rs. 50,41,738--the assessee, being aggrieved, appealed to the commissioner (appeals) who upheld the assessee's objections that section 144b did not authorise the income tax officer to make a second draft assessment order--that order of commissioner was taken up in further appeal by revenue-- the tribunal has rejected the revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the commissioner--justified--while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1998 (HC)

K. Veeriah Vs. Muthulakshmi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-25-1998

Reported in : II(1999)DMC287

m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. this revision is preferred by k. veeriah, the petitioner herein/husband, as against the order passed in crl. r.p. no. 29/1996 on the file of the principal sessions judge, mudurai allowing in part, while modifying the order passed in the application for maintenance in m.c. no. 1/95 on the file of the judicial magistrate, melur.2. muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/wife, filed an application claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for herself and for her minor children respondents 2 to 4. the lower court passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4 minor sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 200/- per month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that those children are living with the petitioner herein.3. however, the first respondent challenging the order of disallowing her claim for maintenance and seeking for the enhancement of the maintenance amount to the fourth respondent, minor daughter, filed the revision before the learned sessions court at madurai. on hearing the parties, the learned sessions judge held that the wife, the first respondent herein, was entitled to maintenance of rs. 400/- per month and enhanced the maintenance granted in favour of the fourth respondent from rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1998 (HC)

K. Veeriah Vs. Muthulakshmi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-25-1998

Reported in : 1999CriLJ624

orderm. karpagavinayagam, j. 1. this revision, is preferred by k. veeriah, the petitioner herein/husband, as against the order passed in cri. r. p. no. 29/96 on the file of the principal sessions judge, madurai allowing in part, while modifying the order passed in the application for maintenance in m. c. no. 1/95 on the file of the judicial magistrate, melur.2. muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/ wife, filed an application claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for herself and for her minor children respondents 2 to 4. the lower court passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4 minor sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 200/- per month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that those children are living with the petitioner herein.3. however, the first respondent challenging the order of disallowing her claim for maintenance and seeking for the enhancement of the maintenance amount to the fourth respondent, minor daughter, filed the revision before the learned sessions court at madurai. on hearing the parties, the learned sessions judge held that the wife, the first respondent herein, was entitled to maintenance of rs. 400/- per month and enhanced the maintenance granted in favour of the fourth respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1998 (HC)

Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Doulatmal Chondia

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-14-1998

Reported in : 2001(130)ELT41(Mad)

v. kanagaraj, j.1. the above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1986 made in e.o.c. no. 678 of 1983 by the court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate (economic offences-i), madras in acquitting the accused therein, who is the respondent herein having found him not guilty of the charges under section 9(1)(b)(i), 9(1)(b)(ii) and section 6 of the central excises and salt act, read with rule 174 punishable under section 9(1)(ii) (two counts) and under sections 468 and 471 of the indian penal code.2. the charges as framed against the respondent/accused are that firstly that the respondent being the proprietor of m/s. indian cable industries manufactures of electrical wires and cables falling under tariff item 33-b of the central excise tariff, on 22-2-1982 when the officers of the preventive group madras-iv division visited the factory premises located at no. 29, perumal koil garden lane, madras-1 and the shop 'chordia electricals' located at door no. 104, audiappa naicken street, madras-1, they seized the manufacturing register, delivery challan book, production and clearance registers also 635 coils of electric wires and cables under a mahazar exhibit p-7 from the factory and 33 documents and 601 coils of electric wires and cables bearing the brand name 'micro' under mahazar exhibit p-62, as per which during the year 1980-81, the duty payable by the accused was rs. 2,05,332.85 and that for the period between 1-4-1981 and 22-2-1982 the duty payable by him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1998 (HC)

P.M. Munusamy Gounder, Prop. B.K.P.M.M. Bus Service and anr. Vs. Tamil ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ226

orderk. govindarajan, j.1. the first petitioner made an application for renewal of permit for the route krishnagiri to thirupathur viz., kaveripattinam, thalihalli, velampatti, nagarasampatti, pochampalli, mathur, kannandahalli and kakkangarai in respect of his route bus mdd.454 for a further period of 5 years with effect from 24.6.1974. the anna transport corporation ltd., salem also made an application for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply on the said route. both the applications were considered by the regional transport authority, dharmapuri, and in the order dated 21.6.1974, he rejected the renewal application filed by the first petitioner and granted the permit in favour of the anna roadways transport corporation ltd. aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed further appeal in appeal no. 442 of 1974 on the file of the state transport appellate tribunal, madras. the appellate tribunal also concurred with the findings of the regional transport authority, dharmapuri and dismissed the appeal. hence the petitioners have filed the present revision.2. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner has been making applications for renewal, pending the proceedings. one of such applications was made on 13.1.1989 requesting renewal for five years from 24.6.1989. according to him, the said application is yet to be disposed of. thereafter also, the first petitioner made applications and the last of such applications .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1998 (HC)

Sakunthala and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-16-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ453

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions on various grounds.2. in both the writ petitions the total extent involved in the acquisition proceedings is 12 cents. the lands in survey nos. 17/13 and 17/16 an extent of 6 cents owned by the petitioner in w.p. no. 3969 of 1991 and another 6 cents owned by the petitioner in w.p. no. 3976 of 1991 were sought to be acquired by madras, metropolitan development authority for widening nesapakkam road. in both the writ petitions even though the petitioners have raised several contentions, on the basis of various averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions and raised the following points:(i) there is no proper enquiry as per section 5-a of the land acquisition act, 1894 since rule 3(b) of land acquisition (tamil nadu) rules has not been followed.(ii) the entire acquisition proceedings initiated against both the petitioners are liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fide action of the respondents.3. on the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent has submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner did not submit their objections within 30 days as per section 5-a(1) of the land acquisition act, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that there is violation of rule 3(b). he also submitted that the land acquisition officer, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1998 (HC)

Vanavamalai, P and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1998

Reported in : (1998)2MLJ476

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on various grounds.2. the petitioners own lands in sooriyur village, tiruchirapalli taluk. the respondents have initiated proceedings under the land acquisition act, 1894 to acquire the lands of the petitioners. it is stated that bharathidasan university has submitted proposals to the state government that it requires 500 acres of land under first stage i. initially the state government issued orders to acquire the said 500 acres of land in sooriyur village. however, the lands belonging to the petitioners were not included in the said order. in this regard, section 4(1) notification was published in the government gazette on 31.12.86. the substance of the notification was also published in the local dailies circulated in the area. pursuant to the notification, 2nd respondent on 30.1.1987 issued notices to the petitioners that the lands belonging to them are required for public purposes for the formation of bharathidasan university and if the petitioners have any objection, they can submit the same on 13.4;1987. the petitioners raised various valid objections. the 2nd respondent forwarded the objections to the third respondent for their comments. the third respondent by reply dated 25.5.1987 offered their remarks. the second respondent on 30.5.1987 forwarding the above letter of the third respondent to the petitioners called them to attend further .....

Tag this Judgment!


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