Chennai Court December 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.
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad216; II(1990)DMC146
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In these civil revision petitions, an interesting question as to whether proceedings for obtaining a decree for divorce instituted by the husband against his wife can be continued by the wife after the death of her husband against her mother-in-law, arises.2. The facts are few and simple and are undisputed. One Ramanathan, the son of the petitioner in these civil revision petitions, married the respondent herein, on 17-2-1975. O.P. 30 of 1983 Sub Court, Kumbakonam, was filed by Ramanathan against the respondent in these civil revision petitions under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a decree of dovorce on the ground that the respondent had intentionally and without any justification deserted him. On 24-10-1983, Ramanathan obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against the respondent herein and subsequently he died on 3-6-1984. Thereupon, the respondent herein filed I.A. 66 and 67 of 1985 under Order 2...
Chinnakannu Pillai Alias Vs. Ramasamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ103
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by the defendant against the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S. No. 10 of 1984 on his file. It is seen that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,060 with subsequent interest and costs. The allegations in the plaint are that the respondent-plaintiff has sold casuarina trees in Tuttipetvely, Villianur Commune, Pondicherry, for Rs. 3,750 about six months prior to the filing of the suit, that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,750 towards the said sale consideration and that the balance is due and since in spite of repeated demands he did not pay the amount, the suit was filed.2. The said suit was resisted by the revision petitioner herein who would deny the allegation that the plaintiff sold casuarina trees to him. He further stated that it was not sold for Rs. 3,750 as alleged, that the respondent has sold the casurina seedlings rai...
Thiruvengadam Vs. K.B. Goyal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: I(1989)ACC434; 1990ACJ233
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The injured victim of a motor accident has filed the present appeal, contending that the compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate.2. Facts briefly are: The appellant, on 8.10.1981, was riding on his bicycle with a pillion rider, Durai, when car bearing registration No. TMC 8585 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the cycle and as a result of which the pillion rider died and the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant filed M.O.P.No.506of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The legal representatives of the pillion rider, Durai, filed M.O.P. No. 507 of 1981 before the same court claiming a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-.3. The respondents contended that the accident was not due to the rash and...
M. Rayappan Vs. D. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ459
ORDERBellie, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the suit is in time. The defendant is the appellant.2. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,371-25 due on a promissory note dated 11.5.1970. An endorsement of payment was made on the promissor note on 1.4.1973. The suit was filed on 28.1.1978. According to the plaintiff he bona fide believed that the defendant was an agriculturist and therefore he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts and hence the suit filed beyond three years from the date of endorsement is in time.3. In the written statement it was contended that the defendant though an agriculturist is paying agricultural income tax and hence he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts and hence the suit ought to have been filed within the normal period of limitation and that having not been the suit is barred by limitation and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.4. The trial...
Collector of Customs (Appeals) Vs. Mala International
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT631(Mad)
1. These four appeals arise out of a common order of S. A. Kader, J., made in W.P. Nos. 3059 to 3062 of 1984, dated 7-10-1988. Aggrieved by the common order of S. A. Kader, J., the Revenue has come up by way of these writ appeals. 2. The only point that arises for our decision in all these four appeals revolves round the meaning to be given to the heading 'the groundnut' occurring under description of article in Heading No. 20 to the Second Schedule - Export Tariff. Heading No. 20 reads as follows : 'Groundnut - (i) Groundnut Kernel (ii) Groundnut in Shell' 3. It is common ground, the respondents in all these appeals have exported 'blanched and roasted peanuts' and the same have been subjected to export duty as if the export of blanched and roasted peanuts will fall under Heading No. 20(i) of Schedule II to the Export Tariff. 4. The learned Judge, accepting the case of the respondent that meaning given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in the trade and commerce conversa...
M. Subramaniam and ors. Vs. C. Chhottabhai and Company by Partner, Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ66
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The former appear arises out of O.S. No. 248 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem. That suit was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,804-34 with interest on Rs. 12,424-34 at 18 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till decree and thereafter at 6 percent per annum till payment. That suit was based on a hire purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant by name Murugiah Chetti. Defendants 2 and 3 were said to be the guarantors. According to the plaint, certain amounts were paid on various dates towards the liability; but a huge amount remained to be discharged. Consequently, for the recovery of the sum due to the plaintiff, the suit was filed. It is not necessary to go into the other details of the plaint. 2. The suit was contested by the appellants herein on the ground that the transaction was not binding on them. The appellants are the sons and daughter of Murugaiah Chetty, the first defendant. Accordi...
M.O.H. Aslam Vs. M.O.H Uduman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ172
Sathiadev, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 206 of 1978 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant. The five defendants are five respondents herein.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for dissolving the firm M.O.Hassan Kuthus Maricar with its registered office now at No. 19, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Karaikal and all its branches at Pondicherry, Madras and Villupuram with effect from the date of filing of the suit; for directing taking of accounts from 20.7.1962 till date of suit and to direct the assets of the firm to be valued and realised, etc., for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the management of the Firm; for granting a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 3 on the one hand and defendants 4 and 5 on the other from recovering or receiving or disposing of or otherwise dealing with the assets of the Partnership Firm including those specified in Schedule 'A' to 'C' and for such other reliefs as deemed fit and just, in the circumstances of...
Saroja Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ21
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals were filed by the unsuccessful wife before the lower appellate court.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two appeals are briefly as follows: The appellant herein (wife) filed O.P. No. 144 of 1978 before the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore, under Section 9(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, and after summons were received in the above proceedings, the husband, who is the respondent in these appeals, filed O.P. No. 158 of 1978 for dissolution of Marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion. The case of the appellant is that she married the respondent on 16-9-1967 according to Hindu sastras in her husband's house in Melkangay-ankuppam. Thereafter they lived together at Melkangayankuppam for some time and later at Thiruvannamalai where the respondent was working as Assistant Professor in Government College. In September, 1968, she gave birth to a female child by n...
Santhana Krishnan Vs. Poongothai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ319
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful husband before both the courts below has filed this appeal. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be briefly stated as follows:The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The case of the appellant is that he married the respondent on 29th June, 1972 at Cuddalore and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Ooty where the appellant was employed as a Lecturer in Government Arts College. In May, 1973 he was transferred to Government Arts College Cuddalore. They also lived together from January, 1974 to April, 1974 at Devanampattinam. Thereafter the appellant shifted his place of residence to Naduthittu and in the beginning of February, 1975 the respondent left the appellant without his knowledge and consent and had gone to her parents house at Narthangudi in Chidambaram Taluk. Even when the respondent was li...
Kamatchi and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC484
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. Facts briefly are : One Guna Reddiar, the husband, of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, while he was travelling in a cycle in the over-bridge at Tambaram on 10-10-1980, was crushed to death by a bus bearing Registration No. T.M.W. 8391 belonging to the respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.O.P. No. 357 of 1980 Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Additional Subordinate Judge) Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Regarding the death of another person, who was also seated in the same cycle, the claimant Indraniammal, has preferred M.O.P. No. 154 of 1981 before the same Court claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.3. The respondent contest...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »