Chennai Court July 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.
K. Jayalakshmi Vs. S.M. Muthaier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ411
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is against an order passed on 43.1988 by the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul making the interim attachment absolute.2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,300 with interest on Rs. 45,000 at 24% per annum from the date of plaint. The suit is based on two promissory notes executed by the defendants. While the suit was pending, the respondent applied for attachment of the properties. In support of the application for attachment the respondent had made the following averments:. Now, already 1st defendant's husband wound up his business at Madras and is attempting to sell the same to third parties. She has only one house at Madurai with intention to obstruct and delay the execution of the decree that may be passed in this suit, she is about to dispose off the whole of the property belonging to her and to secrete the consideration herself. If she does so, I may not be able to recover any amount. I have also filed a third party affi...
K.R. Jadayappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. K.B. Venkatachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ119
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 16 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order made in I.A. No. 295 of 1987 restraining them by an injunction from manufacturing and selling matches using the impugned trade mark devices 'Standing Stag' and 'Standing Deer' shown in Schedules B and C to the application and passing off the goods manufactured by them under the above said trade marks till the disposal of the suit.2. The first respondent herein is the proprietor of the second respondent concern. The respondents filed the suit referred to above for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from in any manner infringing their trade mark 'National Park' together with the device of a 'Standing Stag' and the colour scheme and get up by using the offending 'Running Deer' together with the device of 'Standing Stag' and identical colour scheme and get up or any other mark or marks which are i...
Mangalammal and anr. Vs. T. Lalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ454
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two revisions petitions are directed against orders dismissing cheque applications filed by the petitioners in order to withdraw the amounts in deposit in Court brought to the executing Court pursuant to orders of attachment made earlier. The respondents in both the revisions are the same while the petitioners are different.2. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.4199 of 1987 filed a suit O.S.No.60 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiuvannamalai and obtained a decree against the respondents. The decree directed the respondents to pay the amount from out of the assets of the deceased A.V.K.V.S.Thirugnanam, the husband of the first respondent and father of other respondents. In execution of the decree the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 33,573-75 as due on 27-12-1987 and prayed for attachment of the amount in deposit in O.S.No.671 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvanamalai. It Was expressly stated in the execution petition that the amount in the Cour...
Sappani Mohammed Labbai Vs. Abdulla Syed Through Power of Attorney Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ200
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 142 of 1977 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli is the appellant. Plaintiff is the respondent. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,600 based on usufructuary mortgage and for arrears of rent.2. In the plaint, it is stated in para 3 that 'defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 and executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.' Against column relating to rate of interest, it is stated 'mortgagee to be in possession in lieu of interest.' In para 4, it is stated that defendant took the schedule lands on lease from the plaintiff agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 600 per half year. Thereafter, it is stated in the plaint as follows: Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from India, defendant did not pay any rent, and on return when plaintiff made the demand, defendant sent a notice on 4.5.1977 stating that he had made certain payments to the plaintiff, and those payments should be adjusted towards th...
Raghava and Veera and anr. Vs. Lachhmandas (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ93
ORDERMohan, J.1. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On the Original Side of this Court under insolvency jurisdiction, I.P. No. 66 of 1977 was filed by a creditor viz. Munuswamy Reddiar for adjudicating the appellant M/S. Raghava and Veera Reddi as insolvents. This was on 6.8.1977. The first respondent viz. Lachhmandas filed Appln. No. 561 of 1977 under Section 92 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' f or substituting petitioning creditor in the place of he original creditor. In 1978, Appln. No. 70 of 1978 was filed by M/s Ajith India Private Limited for substitution under Section 92 of the Act. The petitioning creditor Munuswami Reddiar died on 17.4.1978. No legal representative's were brought on record on 7.9.1978 a request was made on behalf of the petitioning creditor to grant time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioning creditor. Ismail, J. (as he then was) declined to grant time and dismiss...
Shanmugham Vs. Gobichettipalayam Municipality Represented by Its Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ436
Bellie, J.1. In a suit for eviction the defendant tenant Shanmugham has filed the Second Appeal. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but the Appellate Court decreed the suit.2. The facts: The plaintiff Municipality constructed houses for its employees. There were surplus houses and those houses were let out to non-employees also. The defendant is one such person who was allotted the suit house. On a subsequent direction from the Government the non-employees were required to vacate the houses. According to the plaintiff-Municipality the defendant's tenancy was terminated and he was asked to vacate but he did not vacate and therefore the Municipality had to file the suit.3. As against this the defendant contended that he was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and therefore the suit is not maintainable. He also contented that the lease has not been validly terminated and hence the suit is incompeteat.4. The trial Court held that the Tamil ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›