Chennai Court November 1987 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.
P.V. Kothandarama Raju Vs. the Common Fund Belonging to Senguntha Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ242
Srinivasan, J.1. S.A. No. 510 of 1984-This appeal arises out of a suit for possession and recovery of damages from January, 1978 to April, 1978. The title of the plaintiff is not in dispute. The only defence to the suit was that it was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. Admittedly the plaintiff had filed a suit earlier as O.S.A. No. 17 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Srivilliputhur. In that suit the prayer was for recovery of Rs. 3,045 with interest thereon by way of damages for use and occupation. The cause of action for the suit was stated to be the trespass committed by the defendant on 10.1.1975. The present suit is filed for recovery of possession as well as damages for the subsequent period.2. The trial Court took the view that the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C., and dismissed the same. On appeal that conclusion was reversed and the learned appellate Judge held that the suit was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C.3. In this second appe...
S. Ramiah Vs. Ariyakudi Kalyana Krishna Hospital Trust by Managing Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ237
Srinivasan, J.1. This Second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the lessor who was a trust against the appellant. Both the Courts below have granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff not only for possession but also for a sum of Rs. 915.80 by way of arrears of rent. The suit was originally filed by the trust represented by its Managing Trustee. When the appeal before the lower appellate Court was pending, respondents 2 to 4 herein filed two applications by one of which they sought to come on record as parties on the footing that they had become the owners of the property by virtue of a registered exchange deed dated 26.5.1982. By the other application the respondents 2 to 4 sought the permission of the Court to be represented by their power of attorney agent by name Raja Madhava Kalanidhi. Both the applications were ordered by the lower appellate Court, and two revision petitions were filed by the present appellant. They were numbered as C.R.P. Nos. 5223 and 5224 of 19...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. T.S. Soundarapandia Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ367
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Ramaswami Pillai-the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1979 in O.S. No. 472 of 1978 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruneiveli on a suit based on a promissory note, granting a decree for recovery of Rs. 358.50 with proporionate costs.2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant before the lower Court is as follows:2. The defendant/respondant herein accepting cash consideration of Rs. 7,000 and undertaking to pay interest of 9% per annum executed a promissory note dated 23.11.1972. But he has not paid any part of the principal or interest. The appellant demanded the money through a notice issued by his advocate. The respondent gave a reply making false allegations. The averments in the reply notice are not supported by bona fides. Hence the suit was laid.3. In his written statement beforer the lower Court, the defendant/respondent admitting the execution of the promissory note dated 23.11.1972 ...
S. Benziger Vs. Licy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ131
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Court below refusing to stay the trial of the suit in O.S. No. 56 of 1984, till the disposal of O.S. Nos. 450 of 1984 and 466 of 1984 under Sections 10 and 151, C.P.C. O.S. No. 450 of 1984 and 466 of 1984 pending before the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai. It is seen that O.S. No. 450 of 1984 is filed for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from altering the existing shed. O.S. No. 466 of 1982 is filed for the specific performance of the alleged release in favour of the petitioner herein. On the other hand, O.S. No. 56 of 1984 is filed for general partition of the entire properties and other reliefs.2. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on going through the order passed by the lower Court, I find that there is absolutely no common issue involved in the earlier suits which would warrant the stay of the subsequent suit. The question to be decided in the partition ...
V.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Vayinagaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ94
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order in IA. No. 430 of 1984 in O.S. No. 97 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition ate as follows :- The respondents 1 to 5 herein as plaintiffs filed the said suit against the petitioner and the sixth respondent herein as defendants 1 and 2 and another one O.R. Arunachalam Chettiar, who was the third defendant in the said suit, for framing a scheme and for other reliefs. The suit was filed in a representative capacity by the plaintiffs Under Order 1, Rules 8, C.P.C. Even before the summons were served on the third defendant, the third defendant died on 14.7.1983. This fact was intimated to the Court on 5.8.1983 and thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a petition in I.A. No. 236 of 1984 under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement and to implead the legal representative of the deceased third defendant. As the said a...
Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC62; 1988(33)ELT279(Mad)
The Chief Justice 1. The Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi, had been properly invested with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise. 2. In view of the inter-Collectorate ramification and the huge estimated evasion of excise duty, the notice to show cause issued to the appellant is not open to challenge on the ground of overlapping of jurisdiction. 3. Having regard to the fact that there are a large number of branches of the Indian Tobacco Co., throughout India, it will not only be desirable, but also proper that one officer exercises the powers of the Collector. 4. The contents of the show cause notice do not amount to prejudging the alleged evasion and before a notice to show cause was issued, the authority was required to be prima facie satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the issue of a show cause notice. 5. The question as to whether there has been a clandestine removal so as to attract the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules coul...
Revathi C.P. Equipment Ltd. and anr. Vs. Patel Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC534
Sathiadev, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 394 of 1983, on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, are the petitioners herein. The three defendants are respondents herein. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 73,934, with further interest at 15 per cent from date of suit till date of realisation. In the plaint, it is stated as follows ;The first'plaintiff purchased two numbers of Cummins Diesel Engines from Kirloskar Cummins Ltd., Poona, under Invoice No. KA 3712 dated 11-9- 1980. The company entrusted the two engines to the second defendant for transfer from Bombay to Coimbatore to the first plaintiff under Goods consignment Note No. 868608 dated 12-9-1980. A policy of insurance was taken by the first plaintiff to cover the transit risk. By letter dated 8-10 1980, second defendant informed first plaintiff that the consignment was involved in an accident in route. A certificate of damage was issued on 10-10 1980 by first defendant. The survey report was produced to assess the ...
The Collector of Madras Vs. N. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ122
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. On a reference made by the office, the matter is posted before this Court regarding the maintainability of the revision-petition on the question of limitation. The short point that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order passed by the Appellate Authority after a delay of 268 days, which is beyond the period of 60 days prescribed under Section 25(2) of the Act, is maintainable. It is seen from Section 25 of the Act that the revision has to be filed within 60 days even after the provision to extend the time limit of 30 days is taken into consideration. In the instant case, even after deducting60 days, there is a delay of 269 days. The limitation provided under the Special Act for filing revision, inclusive of the permitted period under Section 25 of the Act is only 60 days. In C.M.P. Nos. 2618 and 2619 of 1983. M.M. Thimmiah v. M.G...
Thiruppathi Venkatachalapathy Lorry Service, Through Partner N. Rathin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: II(1988)ACC102; (1988)1MLJ64
Swamikkannu, J.1. A.S. No. 511 of 1981 is an appeal preferred by the first defendant Thiruppathi Venkatachalapathy Lorry Service, through partner N. Rathinasami Nadar against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1981 in O.S. No. 91 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, decreeing the suit for damages as prayed for with costs. A.S. No. 659 of 1982 is an appeal by the third defendant Mama Roadways through its partner Javerchand, Dana Bazaar, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, against the judgment and decree in the very same O.S. No. 91 of 1978. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Madurai; M/s Sundaraj Match Industries Private Limited, through its Managing Director, Sivakasi; Plaintiffs 1 and 2, Shri Radha Shyam Sharma, Mama Roadways, Jalgaon, defendants 2 and 3 are respondents 1 to 4 in Appeal No. 511 of 1981. In A.S. No. 659 of 1982 the first plaintiff New India Assurance Company Limited, second plaintiff Sundaravel Match, Industries Private Limited, the first defendant ...
Arcot N. Veeraswami Vs. M.G. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad192
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutional validity of the various Ordinances and Acts taking over the management of the Pachaiyappa's Charities. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation by a person claiming to be service minded by nature. He was himself a member of the Pachayappa's Trust Board during the period from 1972 to 1977 and is stated to be holding a high position id a leading opposition party in Tamil Nadu. 2. The facts leading to the filing of thi4 petition are as follows : -The Pachayappa's Charities is a trust created by a Philanthropic individual by name Pachayappa Mudaliar. The Pachayappa's Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) owns extensive immoveable properties both ruban and agricultural lands, residential buildings and various other assets, the total value of which is estimated to be of the order of Rs.150/- crores and above. The objects of the rust comprise the performanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »