Chennai Court November 1988 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.
Rajeswari Nagar Residents Welfare Association Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ447
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This writ petition is for issue of mandamus forbearing the respondents from using the school and play ground specified in Rajeswari Nagar lay out in Survey No. 38 of Karambakkam village, Chengalpattu District for purposes other than for children and recreational activities of individuals.2. According to the affidavit of the Secretary of the petitioner-Association, filed in support of the petition, the members of the Association purchased house sites in Survey No. 38, Karambakkam village and constructed houses thereon. The lay out for Rajeswari Nagar was approved by the Director of Town Planning in his L.P.D.M./ D.D.T.P.No. 57/72. Some space was reserved in the lay out for the purpose of running a school and for play ground. It is alleged that in 1980, a small building was constructed by the Panchayat and the authorities concerned assured the residents of the locality that the space would not be used for any purpose other than school and play ground. It is expressl...
Ranganatham Vs. Shyamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad1
ORDER1. C.R.P. 1324 of 1986 converted into C.M.S.A. No. 8 of 1988:-- In view of the order passed in C.M.P. 12496 of 1988 this petition is converted into C.M.S.A. and disposed of accordingly. The only substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the permanent alimony can be granted to wife u/S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even though the main petition for annulment of marriage u/S. 12 of the Act is dismissed.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M. N. Padmanabhan thatU/S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a permanent alimony can be granted only when on the petition filed by either of the spouses u/Ss. 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Act, a decree is passed and not in cases where the petition is dismissed. According to the learned counsel, only in cases where the marriage relationship comes to an end or altered, a permanent alimony can be granted and not in cases where the relationship of the marriage is subsisting and the remedy of the spouse is to proc...
Ranganathan Vs. Shymala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ323
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1324 of 1986-converted into C.M.S.A. No. 8 of 1988: in view of the order passed in C.M.P. No. 12496 of 1988 this petition is converted into C.M.S.A. and disposed of accordingly. The only substantial question of law arises in this appeal is whether the permanent alimony can be granted to a wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even though the main petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act is dismissed.2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, that under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a permanent alimony can be granted only when in the petition filed by either of the spouse under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Act, a decree is passed and not in cases where the petition is dismissed. According to the learned Counsel only in cases where the marriage relationship comes to an end or altered, a permanent alimony can be granted and not in cases where the relationship of the marri...
A. Yuvaraj Vs. B. Rajeswari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ7
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant is the revision Petitioner. The respondents are sisters. They are the owners of the petition buildings, having purchased the same under a document dated 27-3-1982. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(2)(i) -wilful default in payment of rent, Section 10(2)(ii)(b) -user of the building for a different purpose, Section 10(2)(v)-guilty of nuisance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or buildings in the neighbourhood, Section 10(3)(i)-requirement for own occupation and Section 10(3)(c)-additional accommodation, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The Rent Controller rejected the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and additional accommodation. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction of the Rent Controller with regard to one more ground, viz. requirement for additional accommodation.3. In this revision p...
P. Kannan Vs. the Additional Director of Enforcement and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC149
ORDER1. This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in Appeal No. 1163/77, on the file of the 2nd respondent and orders dated 15.3.1980 and 27.5.1980 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No. 163/77 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to hear the Appeal No. 163 of 1977 without insisting for deposit of penalty as a condition for hearing the appeal.2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner herein that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.10.1966 by the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi charging the petitioner for contravention of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Petitioner submitted a reply dated 21.10.1966. Subsequently adjudication proceedings were initiated and on order dated 30.8.67 was passed by the Director of Enforcement. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2982 of 1967 challenging the order of the Director of Enforcement, and the o...
M. Srinivasan Vs. John Bentic (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad334
Srinivasan, J. 1. App 952 of 1980 : The vital issue in this case relates to the claim of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the adopted son of deceased Kumaravelu. The first defendant in the suit is admittedly the wife of Kumaravelu. Defendants 2 and 3 were purchasers of certain properties from the first defendant The third defendant died pending suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 12. Pending the appeal, the first defendant-first respondent died. The plaintiff-appellant filed an application for recording him as the legal representative of the deceased first respondent and that was dismissed. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal It is stated that the appellate Bench directed the matter to be considered at the time of the final disposal of the appeal. The second defendant-second respondent also died pending the appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 12 to 16.2. The plaintiff relies on Exs. A-9, A-19...
The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ83
Mohan, J.1. These writ appeals raise an important question as to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to the issue of Mandamus. The brief facts, which are necessary, are set out below:2. The parties are referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in these writ appeals. The second respondent Aadheenakarthar owns large extent of land in the State of Tamil Nadu scattered over various districts and one such property which forms the subject matter of these writ appeals is survey No. 234/3 and 234/4 (old survey Nos.53 and paimash Nos.307, 308 and 311 to 316). It comprises an extent of 4 acres and 5 cents of wet lands in Adambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chelgalpattu District. On 27-8-1969, the second respondent entered into an agreement for sale of this land with one M.S. Sabapathy. Under the terms of the agreement the consideration was fixed at Rs. 180 per cent. On this agreement, an application was made to the appellant herein ...
A.E.P. Ashoka Kumar Chettiar Vs. V.T.S. Renugopal Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ102
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,100 from the first defendant with further interest or in the alternative for dissolution of the suit partnership as on 3G-4-1971 and taking of accounts and payment of amount by the first defendent to the plaintiff with interest.2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows: In March, 1970, an oral partnership agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 to carry on paddy and rice commission business in Arcot under the name and style of V.T.S. Renugopal Mudaliar. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 5,000 should be contributed by plaintiff and a similar sum should be contributed by the first defendant where the second defendants's contribution should be a sum of Rs. 100. It was also agreed that the profits and loss should be shared in the proportion 40:40:20 among the plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant respectively. The premises in which the business was ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›