Chennai Court September 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.
indirani Vs. Vellathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ168
Sathiadev, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. 506 of 1979 Sub Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 and 3 are the seven respondents herein. The suit was filed for partition of the suit properties and for allotment of plaintiff's 11/18th share and for rendition of accounts. In the plaint, it is stated as hereunder: The suit properties belonged to one Palanisami Thevar, the husband of first defendant. He died in 1973 leaving behind his only son, Velusami Thevar, and defendants 1 and 3 as his heirs. Third defendant is a minor daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of Palanisami. Velusami was entitled to 4/6th share in the properties left by his father, and defendants 1 and 3 were entitled to one-sixth share. First plaintiff was married to Velusami in 1964, and minor plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born to them, and he died on 27.1.1979, and hence, they are his legal representatives. The suit properties are in the joint possession of plaintiffs and first defendant. Sec...
Rajalakshmi Ammal Vs. Duraiswamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ457
S.A. Kadar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Udamalpet in O.S.No. 339 of 1978. The plaintiff is the appellant in A.S.No. 653 of 1980 while the defendants are the appellants in A.S.No. 75 of 1984.2. This is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from the defendants for the periods 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 on the following averments. The schedule properties of a total extent of Ac.6-94 in S.Nos. 84 and 85-A of Vadaboothinatham village in Udumalpet taluk belong to the plaintiff by virtue of a deed of settlement executed in her favour on 2-12-1959 by the plaintiffs brother Muthusami Nadar. One Krishnaswami Gounder, father of defendants 1 to 7 and husband of the 8th defendant, was the tenant of the scheduled properties on an annual rent of Rs. 1,000. The said Krishnaswami died in August, 1973 and the defendants being his heirs have become the statutory tenants. The scheduled lands were leased out for raising paddy crop,...
Kothandan and anr. Vs. Govindarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC407
Swamikkannu, J.1. The decision in 1970 A.C.J. 44 Pandian Roadtwys Corporation, Madurai v. Kafunanithi 94 L. W. 786 and the decision in 94 L. W. 786 (Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai v. Karunanithi 94 L. W. 786 are relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants in support of their contention that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record, and it had wrongly come to the conclusion that the evidence emanating from the witnesses: PW 1 Cbinnaponnu, PW 2 Royappaa and PW 4 Irudayaraj were unreliable. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants herein that nothing material has been brought in the cross examination of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4, the witnesses examined on the side of the appellants herein so as to reject their claim for compensation. It is further submitted that the ingredients of the offence of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident have been proved in the instant case be...
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd., Madras Vs. Appraiser, Madras Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC6; 1988(33)ELT22(Mad)
ORDER1. In these four writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. In three writ petitions, namely, W.P. 2054, 3257 and 3258 of 1983, the petitioner prays for writs of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to clear the imported items of machinery without payment of auxiliary duty under the Customs Law. In the fourth writ petition, namely, W.P. 2055 of 1983, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to direct the Union of India to grant exemption to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to payment of auxiliary duty on items of machinery imported by it. The petitioner has no grievance with regard to the payment of basic Customs duty on the items of machinery imported by it. 2. The petitioner has imported the concerned items of machinery pursuant to specific contracts registered under Heading 84.66 to the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 51 of 1975. The petitioner has enjoyed the concessions annexed to the imports made...
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited Vs. the Appraiser, Appraising ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC548(Madras)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Wednesday, 2nd and Thursday the 3rd days of September, and upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dt 831983 & 1141983 respectively and made herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. B.R. Dolie Advocate for the petitioner, in all the petitioners and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government standing counsel on behalf of the Respondents in all these petitions, and having been posted this day for orders the Court made the following order:In these four writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. In three writ petitions namely W P. Nos. 2054. 3257 and 3258 of 1983, the petitioner prays for writs of mandamus directing 'the respondents to permit the petitioner to clear the imported items of machinery without payment of auxiliary duty under the Customs law. In the fourth writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 2055/83 the petitioner prays f...
C. Shanmugam and ors. Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC199
Swamikkannu, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this appeal against the award dated 24th day of October, 1980 in O.P No. 450 of 1979 which was disposed of by the Tribunal along with O P. No 449 of 1979. Here we are concerned only with the award relating to O P. No. 450 of 1979.2. The deceased Anjalai was a Fish Vendor, aged 45 On 29-7-1979 at 8 a.m. she was travelling in the rickshaw driven by deceased Singaram and the P.T.C. Express Bus knocked down the rickshaw driver as well as the occupants of the rickshaw resulting in the death of Anjalai. The first petitioner/first appellant is her husband and the petitioners/appellants 2 to 4 are the cnildren of the deceased. They claim Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.3. The respondent, namely the Pallavan Transport Corporation, filed a counter denying rashness or negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is stated in the counter that the ariver was slowly proceeding on the road and at that time, the left front tyre suddenly burst on account of...
Seethamma and ors. Vs. the Director of Fire Services Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC557
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. It admits of no doubt that the occurrence took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. The respondent had filed a counter wherein it is alleged that the deceased was responsible for his own death and as such there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle TMZ 140. A careful perusal of the evidence in this case clearly shows that in a most reckless manner, the vehicle in question had been driven by the driver. The driver of the vehicle in question was examined as R.W. 1. Henry, has stated in his evidence that the vehicle was being taken from the Fire Station for rescuing the buffalo and in that process while negotiating a bridge, this occurrence had taken place. The rescue call was to rescue the buffalo which had fallen into the ditch. This is not a great emergency call. Therefore there is no justification for the van to proceed at a terrible speed in a' bridge locality and killed a pedestrain. To rescue the buffalo w...
Karuppanna Gounder and ors. Vs. Ammal Appan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ376
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for an injunction. His case is that his father, late one Kuttianna Gounder, was a cultivating tenant of the suit properties, which belonged to a trust, and on his demise the plaintiff continued as the cultivating tenant of the suit properties, and the defendants who claim themselves to be alienees from the trustees tried to interfere with his possession. The defendants did not admit the claims of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit properties as cultivating tenant and further they questioned the maintainability of the suit of the present nature before the civil Court. The controversy was resolved in favour of the plaintiff and first Court decreed the suit as prayed for, on 22.6. 1978, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit properties as a cultivating tenant; the suit as laid is maintainable and the plaintiff is en...
Ammayappan Vs. the Additional Collector In-charge and Collector and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ293
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act X of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant under the Act. The lands belong to a trust. It is stated that respondents 4 to 8 are the trustees. Respondents 9 to 12 claim themselves to be alienees of the lands in question. The lands were originally demised by way of lease to one Kuttianna Gounder, who is no more. According to the petitioner, he being the son of the said Kuttianna Gounder continued to be in possession of the lands as the cultivating tenant and hence he must be recorded as such under the Act. The third-respondent did not countenance this plea of the petitioner. The order of the third-respondent is dated 6.8.1979. Anterior to the order of the third-respondent, the petitioner was obliged to move the civil Court in O.S.No. 222 of 1977 on the file the District Munsif, Karur, against respondents 9 to 12 to ask for the...
New India Assurance Company Vs. Santha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC367
Swamikkannu, J.1. A.A.O. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1982 arise out of the award in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 2 and 47 of 1980 respectively. M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 2 and 47 of 1980 were disposed of together by a common award dated 13th July, 1981 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (District Judge) of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, Both these petitions were filed Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. 3.They have been tried together since they related to the same accident. Evidence has been recorded in MACTOP No. 2 of 1980. The third respondent M/s. New India Assurance Company is the appellant in A.A.O. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1982.2. It is common ground that the accident took place at about 3-00 a.m. on 3-7-1979 near Katnampatti about 3 K.M. from Krishnagiri in Krishnagiri-Madras Trunk Road and that the lorry bearing registration number MSM 6072 driven by the 1st respondent in the petitions hit against a stationary Lorry as a result of which Velmurugan and Nagendran who traveled in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »