Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
B. Lalithchand Nahar Vs. State by Insepctor of Police, Central Crime B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1111
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing on 26-7-90 upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. A. S. Chakravarthy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) of behalf of the State (1st Respondent) and of Mr. T. Munirathina Naidu, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and having been posted this day for orders, the Court made the following order : One P. Thiagarajan purchased a Maruthi Car bearing registration on No. TSF 203 on hire purchase agreement with one M/s. Bhawar Kaver, No. 51, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17. He was using the car and paying the monthly instalments regularly. It so he phoned that his brother by name Govardhan, in collusion with some of his associates unwarranted elements, fraudulently sold the vehicle to one Jani of Kerala. Consequently, the hirer Thiagarajan gave a complaint to the Central Crime Branch Police, which was registered in Crime No. 779/88. During the course of investigat...
Tag this Judgment!M. Velayudam Vs. Kannagi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ36
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry to Karaikal dismissing the petition filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner/appellant therein came to Court with the case that the respondent was married to him by force and he did not consent for the said marriage. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant seduced her and both of them had sexual intercourse several times. It is stated by the respondent that on the intimacy between the petitioner/appellant and the respondent being known to the villagers, a panchayat meeting was convened on 12.9.1986 and it was decided at the Panchayat that the appellant should marry the respondent and the date of marriage was fixed as 14.9.1986. According to her, the marriage took place in the presence of village panchayatdars and it cannot be annulled under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.2. Learned Additional District Judge held that the marriage was brought about ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannadikara Rajendran Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC548
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No. 105 of 1986, on file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attur. The respondent, who is the Inspector of Police, Valappadi, after completing investigation in Crime No. 6/86 on the file of the Karumanthurai Police Station, registered at the instance of one Theethan, filed a final report against the petitioner and two others before the trial Magistrate, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was charge-sheeted with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C, alleging abetment of the aforementioned offences.2. The prosecution case needs narration. The petitioner was a contractor engaged in the construction of a dam. The first informant and several others were working as labourers under the petitioner and were engaged in digging and removing mud from the dam-site. They had stopped work, since the petitioner had not paid their wages for fifteen days. W...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Lakshmi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad137
1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for specific performance of Ex. A-3 sale agreement D/-4-7-1974 relating to the suit house belonging to the 1st respondent-1st defendant. The 2nd respondent-2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st respondent and the suit agreement was executed in favour of the appellant by the 2nd respondent, acting as the power agent of 1st respondent, pursuant to the deed of power of attorney Ex. B-1 D/- 30-6-1962 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent.2. The sale consideration under Ex. A-3 is Rs. 30,000/- and according to the appellant, Rs. 5,000/- was received by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent as advance. Under the said agreement, the sale deed has to be executed on or before 31-7-1974 when the balance of Rs. 25,000/- has to be paid. According to the appellant, she informed the respondents I and 2 in July, 1974 her readiness to complete the sale and the said respondents agreed ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Swaminathan and Others Vs. Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ990
ORDER1. The accused, who have been convicted by the trial Court for an offence under S. 500 of the Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- which conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal, have filed the present revision challenging the conviction and sentence.2. The respondent preferred a private complaint against the petitioners for the above offence on the following allegations made in the complaint. The respondent, after practising as an Advocate for two years, took up business in sale of silk yarn and was holding several posts as Secretary of the Handloom Weavers' Association, Salem, Member of All India Silk Yarn Producer's Association and so on. He was enjoying a high reputation. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sons of the first respondent and they are living together as a joint family. The third respondent was a broker in Salem in yarn. In that business, he had purchased silk yarn from several merchants and had failed to return the price amount and had utilised...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC512; 1991ACJ327
K. Venkataswami and Raju, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chingleput, dated 23.6.1984 in M.O.P. No. 248 of 1982.2. C.M.A. No. 663 of 1984 has been filed by the insurance company and C.M.A No. 267 of 1986 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhanced compensation.3. The claimants are the wife and the children of deceased Balan alias Balakrishnan who met with an accident on 12th April, 1982. On that ill-fated day, deceased Balan appears to have engaged a lorry TMS No. 3778 for transport of paddy purchased by him, from Pettai to Pillaichatram. The deceased Balan was also travelling in the cabin of the lorry with his goods. It is claimed that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle rashly and at a high speed resulting in the right wheel of the lorry getting released from its position and the axle on the right side broke. In the process, the lorry hit a tree nearby at a place in between Beemanthangal and Poultry Ce...
Tag this Judgment!N. Janakiraman Vs. Director of Tamil Nadu Raffles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)209MLJ1
ORDERRatnam, J.1. It is seen from paragraph 4 of the counter filed by the petitioner before the court below that the plaint presented by the petitioner as an indigent person was ordered to be registered as a suit on 4.4.82 and the suit was thereafter posted to 21.11.83 for the first time for filing of written statement by the respondent. It is also further seen that from 21.11.83, time for filing written statement was extended till 7.12.83, 4.1.84, 21.1.84, 27.1.84, 16.2.84, 27.2.84, 15.3.84 and finally upto 28.3.84. On 28.3.84 as the written statement was not filed despite more than sufficient time having been given, the respondent was set ex pane. The court below in paragraph 6 of its order has stated that the deponent to the affidavit filed by the respondent was not authorised to file an affidavit on behalf of the first defendant in the suit and that it is also not clear in what capacity he purports to file such an affidavit. The court below has also further stated that such an affi...
Tag this Judgment!Virolex Cables and anr. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ33
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dismissing the application for entering caveat as not maintainable. The caveat was filed by the petitioners in the expectancy of a proceeding by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The District Judge dismissed the application, holding that under Section 32 of the said Act, a financial corporation is entitled to get orders without notice to the defaulter and there is no question of the defaulter filing a caveat with reference to a proceeding under Section 31 of the Act.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the District Judge is functioning as District Court and the powers under the said Act are not conferred on him as 'persona designata', but conferred on the Court itself. Hence, he argued that the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure will automatically apply and they cannot be excl...
Tag this Judgment!M. Abdul Hakkim Vs. M.K.M. Abdul Salam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ377
Somasundaram, J.1. The Second respondent in O.S. No. 441 of 1981, who failed before both the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this second appeal by their nomenclature given in the suit2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 441 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchi against the defendants for recovery of possession of the properties described in Schedules A, B and C and for other reliefs contending that the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit became lessees under the plaintiff in respect of A Schedule properties under a lease deed dt. 13-9-1975 for a period of six years on monthly rent of Rs.350/- and that the defendants had also executed a lease agreement dt. 22-9-1975 in respect of the machineries and 'Thalavada Samans' described in B and C Schedules in the plaint, and that the said lease deeds were executed for the p...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Vs. B. Sarswathi Ammal and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC352
Venkateswamy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chingleput dated 23.6.1984 in M.O.P. No. 248 of 1982.2. CM. A. No. 663 of 1984 has been filed by the Insurance Company and CM. A. No. 267 of 1986 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhanced compensation.3. The claimants are the wife and the children of deceased Balan alias Balakrishnan who met with an accident on 12th April, 1982. On that ill-fated day, deceased Balan appears to have engaged a lorry T.M.S. No. 3778 for transport of paddy purchased by him, from Petlai to Pillaichatram. The deceased Balan was also-travelling in the cabin of the lorry with his goods. It is claimed that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle rashly and at a high speed resulting in the right wheel of the lorry getting released from its position and the axle on the right side broke. In the process, the lorry hit a, tree near by at a place in between Beemanthangal and Poultry Centre. Ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »