Chennai Court April 1978 Judgments
Ravindra Finance Vs. Yaanai Tobacco Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad25
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned third Additional subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated 26-7-1977 in E.P. No. 3 of 1977 in O. S. No. 394 of 1975 on his file. Admittedly, the petitioner who was the plaintiff and decree holder, obtained a decree only against the firm. Subsequently, he filed an execution petition purporting to be under Order 21, Rules 37 and 50 of the C. P. Code, for executing the decree against the respondents 2 and 3, who, according to the petitioner, were the partners of the firm. The court below dismissed the petition holding that when the respondents 2 and 3 had not been impleaded as parties to the suit or no summons had been served on them, the executing court cannot execute the decree against them. It is to revise this order the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. Order 21, Rule 50 in sub-rule (1) thereof, states as follows-'1. Where a decre...
Tag this Judgment!P. Muthu Pillai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad23
1. The petitioner herein applied to the District Supply Officer, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, for a licence to run a rice mill at Mamsapuram, on the ground that he has purchased the rice-mill from one K. K. Perumal Raja under a sale deed No. 2764/74 dated 28-9-1974, and that the existing rice-mill licence granted in favour of Perumal Raja had been surrendered. At that stage, one K. P. Alagar Raja (the 3rd respondent in these petitions) objected to the grant of the licence to the petitioner. The District Supply Officer overruled the objections and issued a licence to the petitioner on 20-6-1975.2. Thereupon the third respondent preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, who confirmed the order of the District Supply Officer granting the licence to the petitioner, by his order dated 31-7-1975. Thereafter the third respondent filed a revision petition before the Government of Tamil Nadu on 15-9-1975 and the Government, without any notice tot he pet...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Ranganatha Naidu Vs. Senthamarai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad26
1. The second defendant in O. S. No. 148 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai is the appellant, Respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal are the plaintiff, a minor represented by next friend and guardian and defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively.2. The facts of the case may be briefly states as follows : The suit property originally belonged to one Subbammal. On 9-1-1956 the said Subbammal executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Rukmani Ammal. Ex. B. 10 is the registration copy of the settlement deed. The 4th defendant is the husband of Rukmani Ammal while the plaintiff (first respondent) is the only daughter of Rukmani Ammal; and the 4th defendant (sic) Rukmani Ammal died leaving the 4th defendant and the plaintiff as her heirs to the suit property. It is not disputed that the 4th defendant has taken a second wife and he has got a number of children through her. The entire suit property is 'an extent of 1.66 acres of wet land...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Fire and General Insurance Company, Limited (Unit), t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ9
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by an Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the first respondent herein in respect of an accident resulting in the death of the first respondent's husband, one Subramaniam, that took place on 13th June, 1971, when he was hit by a lorry owned by the second respondent and driven by one Vellayan.2. The first respondent, who is the wife of the deceased Subramaniam, filed an application claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the accident that took place at 6.00 A.M. on 13th June, 1971, on the ground that the lorry, belonging to the second respondent and driven by its driver in a careless and negligent manner, hit the deceased who was standing near the bus stop, resulting an the death of the deceased on the spot and that as a result of the death, the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan and anr. Vs. Nagammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad200
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 3785 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit in forma pauperis for recovery of maintenance past and future and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff in the following circumstances. The first defendant (first appellant is that husband of the first plaintiff-first respondent). The marriage took place in 1948 at Madras. The second plaintiff Lakshmi is the daughter born to them. In 1951 the first plaintiff and gant to illtreat the first plaintiff and ceased to look after her and the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs were therefore compelled to file O.S. No. 1829 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court for maintenance. That ended in a compromise, under which the second plaintiff was awarded future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and a sum of Rs. 400/- for past maintenance. The claim of the first plaintiff for maintenance was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavalu Naidu Vs. Janakirama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad8a
ORDER1. The petitioner-defendant in I. A. No. 1117 of 1971 in O. S. No. 24 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ranipet, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit. I. A. No. 1117 of 1971 was filed by the petitioner under O. 9. Rule 13 C. P. Code, for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him. The court below passed an order on 27-3-1972 and the decretal order reads as follows-'The petition will be allowed on payment of Rs. 75 as costs on condition on or before 5-4-1972, failing which the petition do stand dismissed with costs. Call on 6-4-1972'. Admittedly, the conditions imposed were not compiled with and the matter was called on 6-4-1972, and the court below passed the following order :-'Costs not paid. Petition dismissed.'The petitioner herein wanted to file an appeal under O. 43, R. 1(d) C. P. Code, to the District Judge, North Arcot, as against the order passed on 27-3-1972. The appeal was returned with the following ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mohamood Hajee Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ314Mad
ORDERPaul, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 34 of 1978 has been filed under Section 482, Crl. P.C. praying this Court to direct the respondent-the Commissioner of Police by himself and through his officers to disperse and remove all the persons remaining unlawfully inside the premises of the Neo Ranga Vilas Hotel at No. 366-367, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras to enable the petitioner and his partners to have exclusive control and possession of the premises. Writ Petition No. 560 of 1978 is a petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondent-Commissioner of Police directing him to disperse the unlawful assembly in the aforesaid premises.2. The petitioner in both these petitions is one of the three partners who own and run a vegetarian restaurant in the name and style of Neo Ranga Vilas at No. 366-367, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras, which hotel has been running for the last several years. The aforesaid premises actually belonged to the L.I.C. of India, but the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Gounder Vs. Rama Boyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad130
1. The first defendant is the appellant. The second plaintiff and the third defendant are the sons of the first plaintiff and the second defendant is the wife of the first plaintiff. The suit properties were originally owned by the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3. They sold them for a sum of Rs. 2500 under a sale deed dated 6-5-1969. On the date of sale itself, the first defendant executed an agreement to reconvey the properties to the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 within five years from the date of sale on receipt of the consideration of Rupees 2500. It is to enforce this agreement to reconvey, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. The plaintiffs tendered the entire consideration within the time stipulated and demanded the execution of the sale deed by the first defendant. They also issued a notice demanding the specific performance, but the first defendant refused to execute the same. Since defendants 2 and 3 did not co-operate with the plaintiffs, the suit was filed by the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Criterion Publicity Private Ltd. Vs. Golden Plastics a Firm of Merchan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ227
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, returning a plaint for presentation before a proper Court.2. The plaintiff in question is a private limited company having its Head Office at Madras and carrying on business as advertising consultants. The defendants are partners of a firm having their business at Bombay. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff agreed to do some advertisement hoardings for the defendants at Bombay for consideration. The plaintiff did in fact perform its part of the contract by putting up hoardings in Bombay. The defendants made some payments, but there was a balance payable under four bills issued by the plaintiff for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the plaintiff for and on behalf of the defendants and also for the plaintiff's remuneration for doing the hoarding jobs. The suit was laid for recovery of Rs. 13,566-18, representing the unpaid bills.3. The suit was resisted by...
Tag this Judgment!Panthanam Ammal and ors. Vs. K. Srinivasa Ayyangar, and Sons Through O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ253
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai, dated 11th August, 1977 made in G.M.A. No. 88 of 1977 on his file reversing the order of the learned Principal District Munsif of Madurai Town, dated 21st April, 1976 made in I.A. No. 769 of 1975 filed under Sections 7 and 15 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. 1972, Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 15th December, 1972. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act stated that where any debtor has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. This is a benefit conferred on a debtor to enable him to scale down the debt due by him. Section 15 of the Act dealt with cases where decrees have been passed before the publication of the A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »