Chennai Court April 1986 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.
G.K. Rao Vs. A. Henry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad178
ORDER1. The above revision is filed by the defendant petitioner herein questioning the correctness and legality of the order of the XVI Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in 1. A. No. 794 of 1980 in O. S. No. 8043 of 1983. 2. For the disposal of this civil revision petition, certain facts are necessary. The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. No. 804.3 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Madras seeking ejectment of the petitioner herein and also for damages. Written statement was filed and the suit was ripe for trial. At a time when evidence has to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent herein, the plaintiff fell ill. This has resulted in examining the respondent's son-in-law as P. W. 1. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 794 of 1986 in O. S. No. 8043 to examine himself as P. W. 2. In para 3 of his affidavit, the plaintiff/respondent herein states as follows : - 'Due to various reasons, the ease was adjourned from time to time and was ultimately posted to 12-12-85 fo...
Jega Veerapandian Vs. B.U. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad86; (1987)IMLJ116
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant had filed a nomination paper for election to the office of Municipal Councillor, Mayladuthurai Municipality and another nomination paper for the office of the Chairman of the said Municipality. Both his nomination papers were, however, rejected by the Scrutiny Officer, obviously having regard to a clarification which was issued by the Director of Municipal Administration with regard to the manner in which Sec. 7-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 has to be given effect to. The rejection of these nomination papers was challenged by the petitioner-appellant in a writ petition, which, however, came to be rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that the petitioner-appellant should have exercised his option to withdraw one of his nomination papers and he having not done so, the rejection of both the nomination papers was justified.2. In this appeal, the same contention has been raised that the Returning Officer could not have re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›