Chennai Court May 1990 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.K. Chandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ386
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Both the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu, in M.O.P. No. 274 of 1980 dated 24.12.1981.2. C.M.A No. 394 of 1982 is preferred by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereas C.M.A No. 861 of 1987 is preferred by the claimants/petitioners in the said O.P.3. Brief facts are the following:The parties hereinafter are referred to with reference to their ranks in the M.O.P. The petitioners (appellants in C.M.A No. 861 of 1987) are the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased by name Kulandaivelu. The accident took place on 16.5.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. when the deceased was going on a bicycle towards Uthiramerur after attending a meeting at the B.D.O's office on the left side of the road. The bus belonging to the 1st respondent (also 1st respondent in C.M.A No. 861 of 1987) bearing registration No. TNS 1069, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!A. Balaraman and ors. Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ73
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. This writ petition is for a declaration to declare Rule 19(b)II Group Development VI of the Development Control Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as null and void.2. The petitioners are owners of vacant land measuring 27 grounds in T.S.No.1,3,5, and 6 Block Nos.24, 25 Jeevarathanam Nagar, Urur Village. In order to develop the land by putting up a multistoried building, the petitioners submitted a plan to the respondents for planning permission to construct a multistoried building consisting of five blocks with ground plus four floors for residential purpose. On the petitioners' application the Government granted exemption under Section 113 of the Town and Country Planning Act from the provisions of Rules 17 of the Development Control Rules in respect of the proposed construction. After getting exemption under G.O.176 (Housing and Urban Development Department) dated 20.1.89, the petitioners filed an application with the p...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Ammal Vs. C. Suseela and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ127
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Misc. Appeal is against the dismissal order dated 12.1.1990 in E.A.No.4250 of 1986 in E.P.No.523 of 1986 in O.S.No.3244 of 1983 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. In the said suit in O.S.No.3244 of 1983 the first respondent obtained ex parte decree on 23.3.1984 for specific performance of Ex.A.58 sale agreement dated 25.10. 1982 executed in favour of the first respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.48,125/-. The said Ex.A.58 was by the second respondent, the mother, and her children, the respondents 3 to 8.2. Subsequent to the decree, through E.P. No. 2297 1984 she got the sale deed in her favour and in the abovesaid E.A. No. 523 of 1986 got possession on 7.11.1985 of the property sold, through the Court-bailiff. But the appellant has filed the above said E.A. No. 4250 of 1985 under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-delivery of the suit property to her on the ground that she had purchased the said pro...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Represented by Its Assistant General Manager Vs. R.S. Thir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ324
Kanakaraj, J.1. This writ appeal filed by the Indian Bank, a bank nationalised under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1970 poses a challenge to the Bench and the Bar. Whether we rise up to the occasion and meet the challenge, within the four corners of law, will be seen only when we conclude the judgment.2. The first respondent was working as a Shroff in the Rasipuram Branch of the Appellant Bank. On 17.5.1972 one Sanjeevi acting on behalf of his wife Dhanalakshmi gave a complaint addressed to the Agent of the Rasipuram Branch of the appellant Bank. The gist of the complaint was that Dhanalakshmi was holding an R.P. Account. bearing No. C-51, that Sanjeevi gave the first respondent a sum of Rs.250 per mensem from December, 1968 to January, 1972 to be deposited in the R.P. account of his wife, that when the complainant was desirous of getting a loan from R.P. Account, he learnt that the amounts had not been deposited and when the first respondent was called for a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. K. Chandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC531
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Both the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Chengalpattu, in M.O.P. No. 274 of 1980 dated 24.12.1981. C.M. A. No. 394 of 1982 ispreferred by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. whereas C.M.A. No. 861 of 1987 is preferred by claimants/petitioner in the said O.P. Brief facts are the following:The parties hereinafter are refered to with reference to their ranks in the M.O.P. The petitioner (appellants in C.M.A No. 861 of 1987) are the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased by name Kulandaivelu. The accident took place on 16.5.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. when the deceased was going on a bicyle towards Uthirantnerur after attending a meeting at the B.D.O's office on the left side of road. The bus belonging to the 1st respondent (also 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 861 of 1987) bearing registratin No. TNS 1069, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›