Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2(1988)ACC141
ORDER:--These Appeals against Orders having been set down for being spoken on Monday, the 14th day of September, 1987 in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates, the Court made the following Order:31. The matter having been set down for being spoken today, this Court made the following Order.Neyveli Lignite Corporation is the owner of the vehicle and it is bound to pay the compensation that is awarded to the claimants. It is submitted on behalf of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation by its learned Counsel that the entire amount had been paid to the claimants.32. The above two sentences have been incorporated in paragraph 25 of the judgment, after notice to either side on 14-9-1987....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1989]66CompCas283(Mad); 1988(17)ECC178
P.K. Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Foreign Exchanged Regulation Appellate Board, Madras, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Additional Director, Enforcement. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are briefly as follows: One G. Masilamoney was the brother of the appellant and he had serving in Singapore and he died while in service leaving behind him sum of $ 20.000 payable by an insurance company and another sum of $ 4,000 with the Central Board Provident Fund, Singapore. The appellant after coming to know about his brother's death visted Singapore and arranged to bring the said taken exchanged through unauthorised channells. Hence, action was taken in terms of section 19D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by the section of the Nagapattinam unit of the Madras Zonal office of the Enforcement Directorate and there was a search of the residential premises of the appellant on December 2, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1988Mad241
ORDER1. The question which has been argued vehemently by the parties in this revision petition is, whether there is jurisdiction in the Civil Court to extend the time for payment of costs where a conditional order is made by the Court allowing a petition on payment of costs with a direction that otherwise the petition will stand dismissed. We are really not concerned with the merits, of the application which was made by the petitioner-defendant for setting aside an ex parte decree.2. The Wit in question is a suit for possession filed on 17-8-1982. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 15-12-1983,Two of the defendants, being defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 167-1985. That application came to be dismissed for default on 3-12-1985- The defendants, therefore, filed I A. 1183 of 1986 to set aside the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 20-12-1985. This application remained pending. Ult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ338
Srinivasan, J.1. Though the question which arises for consideration in this second appeal is a simple one, it appears to be complicated on account of the trappings, which are usually found in a case from Kanniakumari District. The suit was originally one for redemption of a mortgage dated 11.12.1952, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first-defendant with reference to an extent of about 20 cents in survey number 3734 in Puthuval Purayidam. The plaintiff got title to the property by a sale in his favour by his mother Nakchithiram under Ex. A-7 dated 7.4.1220 Me. The Plaintiff's mother had in turn purchased the property from one Elias Nadar under Ex. A-4 dated 22.2.1103. On the same day, she executed a mortgage and Kuzhikkonam deed under Ex. B-1 in favour of one Yovan Vedakkannu with reference to an extent of 1 acre, including the present suit-property. The mortgageunder Ex. B-1 executed a sub-mortgage in favour of Chellamma and Rosali under Ex. A-10 dated 13.10.1110 Me correspon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ186
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The petitioners are the heirs of the Neelakantan who admittedly owned the premises in question situated at Pondicherry. They filed a petition for eviction of the respondent who is admittedly using the premises for business purposes.2. According to the petitioners, they were staying with the father of Neelakantan as a joint family, but since after the death of Neelankantan in 1979, differences had arisen in the family, the petitioners left the family house and are now living in a rented house. Their claim, therefore, is that they are without any house of their own and they require the premises in question for their personal occupation.3. This petition is contested by the tenant on the ground that Neelakantan had already started proceedings against him for eviction on the ground that he needed the premises for starting a business, being H.R.C.O.P. No. 96 of 1974, which had been dismissed. The tenant denied that the petitioners require the premises.4. The Rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1988)ACC21
Swamikkannu, J.1. The fundamental principal of law is a contract of insurance is a contract of uberrima fides'. Under the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer can arise if all the terms of the contract as between the Insurance Company and the owner are fully complied with. In the instant case before us, it is the case of the fifth respondent-Insurance Company that it is absolved from the liability because some other trailor than the one the number of which has been incorporated in the policy of insurance has been utilised at the time of the accident, and as such, the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 herein are not entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company. The Tribunal also upheld the contention of the Insurance Company and also held that the Insurance Company is not liable. This Court carefully perused the terms of the contract of insurance. There is no term which shows that if any other trailor other than TNY 3269 is used, the Insurance Company is not liable. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1990)DMC257
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 536 of 1978 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalorc are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit.2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/9th share in the suit properties and for future mesne profits. The material averments in the plaint are as follows : The properties described in the A and B schedules to the plaint are the absolute properties of Subbarayalu Naidu who died on 11-5-1978. The first defendant is his first wife. The defendants 2 and 3 are his sons and defendants 4 to 7 are his daughters. The plaintiffs 1 and 2, are the sons of Subbarayalu through his second wife Drowpathi. The marriage of Drowpathi, the mother of the Plaintiffs, with Subbarayalu took place at Thiruvendipuram in Devanatbaswami temple on 13-7-1952. The certified copy of the extract maintained by the Devasthanam is produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ122
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in M.P. 1226 of 1981 in Distress Application No. 135 of 1981 by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Madras. Tie facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows The revision petitioner is the tenant occupying door No. 1, Artisan Shanmugham St., Anderson Road, Ayyanavaram, Madras 23. According to the respondent-landlord, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Hence, she filed Dist. Appn. No. 135 of 1981 before the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Madras, for issuing a warrant to distress the movables in the possession of the revision petitioner in the above premises for recovery of Rs. 2,800 being the arrears of rent at Rs. 400 per mensem from December, 1980 till the end of June, 1981, and obtained an order of attachment of the movables belonging to the revision petitioner. In execution of the said order, the Bailiff who was accompanied by the husband of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1987)ACC454
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 742 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents herein are the petitioners/claimants in the said petition. The respondents filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for the death of the deceased Krishnan who died in the motor vehicle accident on 2-10-1980 at about 9.45 p.m. at Anna Salai, Madras.2. Before the Tribunal PW 2 was examined. He was an eye witness to this accident. Apart from him RW 1 driver of the car was also examined. According to PW 2 on 2-10-80 at about 9.45 p m. the deceased crossed Anna Salai near P. Orr Sons and stood at the yellow line and a car came from Anna Statute side and knocked down the deceased. After knocking down the deceased the car did not stop and therefore the public had stopped the car and sent the injured in the same car to the hospital. It is the case of the respondents/cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1989)ACC327; AIR1989Mad5
Swamikkannu, J.1. It is argued on behalf of the appellants herein that the sum of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the Tribunal as damages to the claimants for mental agony, pain and suffering in the facts and circumstances of the case is not the one contemplated by law. In support of his contention, the decision in Perumal v. Ellusamy Reddiar 1974 ACJ 182 (Mad) is relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. V. Sairam, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 herein, refers to the decision in Imaman v. Union of India, : AIR1976All85 in support of his argument that the sum of Rs. 10,000/-granted by the Tribunal as damages for mental agony, pain and suffering in the facts and circumstances of the case is correct and in accordance with law.2. This appeal has been preferred in the instant case before us, by respondents 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. The claimants are respondents 1 to 5 herein. The first respondent before the Tribunal is the sixth respondent in this appeal.3. The case o...
Tag this Judgment!