Chennai Court July 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vellaiki Konar Vs. Kamala Devi, Through Her Power-of-attorney Agent Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ353
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Madurai, is the petitioner before me.2. Before the facts which touch upon this civil revision petition are set out, it is convenient to refer, in brief, to the events which happened prior to it. On 21st July, 1971, the landowner (respondent herein) filed an application T.C.T.P. No. 38 of 1971 under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act for recovery of possession of the demised land on the ground that the tenant (petitioner herein) was in arrears of rent. An ex parte order was passed on 17th January, 1972. The petitioner tenant attempted to set aside the ex parte order. He was not successful. He filed a second application to set aside the same. Equally he could not succeed. Thereafter he preferred C.R.P. No. 2191 of 1972 in this Court against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte order. When it came up, a conditional order of stay was passed by this Court. The tenant di...
S. Vivekanantham Vs. R. Viswanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ425
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. The interesting question raised in this petition is, whether under Section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a complainant in a private complaint can be permitted by a Magistrate to cite additional witnesses and have them summoned and examined in court. The controversy has arisen in the following circumstances.2. The complainant who is the petitioner herein, has filed a complaint against his son-in-law and certain others for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. Initially, he furnished a list of four witnesses in compliance with the requirements of Section 204(1-A) Criminal Procedure Code. He gave up the examination of two witnesses in that list and later he requested the court to summon ten witnesses and have them examined under Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code. Perhaps realising that the Court may not be interested to summon those persons and examine them as Court witnesses, the petitioner withdrew that petition and f...
Swamiappa Goundar and ors. Vs. Vettakaranpudur Mahajana Bank Ltd., by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ54
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment of Kailasam, J., as he then was, rendered in Second Appeal No. 377 of 1962. The first respondent herein filed a suit on two mortgages for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,586-6-8. The mortgages sued upon were : (i) Exhibit A-1, dated 30th December, 1942 for Rs. 4,000 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 6 per cent per annum payable half yearly and the default interest at 9per cent, if the principal amount was not repaid within a period of two years; and (ii) Exhibit A-2, dated 23rd May, 1945 for Rs. 2,400 payable with interest at 9-3/8. per cent. re-payable in one year and in case of default in repayment default interest at 22 per cent, is chargeable. The defendants who are the appellants herein had paid various amounts and those amounts have been adjusted by the plaintiff towards interest at the contract rate. On 24th October, 1956, the defendants issued a lawyer's notice to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›