Chennai Court September 1990 Judgments
M. Munuswamy Vs. Duraiswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ460
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition by the 1st defendant mortgagor is against the order dated 6.8.1990 in I.A. No. 369 of 1990 in O.S. No. 97 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri.2. The suit, by the 1st respondent mortgagee, is for recovery of the amount due under the suit mortgage. The plaint states that the original mortgage deed was lost and so, the suit has been filed enclosing a certified copy thereof. The written statement of the petitioner admits execution of the mortgage deed and passing of consideration thereof, but only pleads discharge, it also states that on discharge, the original mortgage deed also has been returned to the defendant. It does not however specifically aver that the plaintiffs plea that the original mortgage deed was lost, is not true.3. Nearly three years after the institution of the suit it was posted in the list for trial on 2.4.1990. Then the petitioner filed another I.A. for impleading certain persons and got adjournments of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthabhai Vs. Kattabdmman Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC234
Venkataswami, J.1. These two appeals are preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased persons in an accident that look place on 11th January, 1983.2. On 11-1-1983, a tourist taxi bearing Registration No. TMN 2623 collided head-on with a bus belonging to Kattabomman Transport Corporation as a recsult of which iwo persons, one driver of the taxiand Anr. a passenger in the taxi, died. The legal representatives of these two individuals have filed M.C.O.Ps. 49 and 67 of 1983, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirunelveli, claiming a compensation of Rs. 60, 000 and Rs. 80, 000 respectively.3. The respondent-corporation inter alia contended that the accident look place purely on account of negligent driving on the part of the driver, who died in the accident and there was no negligence on the pan of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent corporation and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.4. After elaborately discussing th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bharathi Mills and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC156
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in W.P.No. 9832 of 1989 is as follows: .to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund tothe petitioner the amount of Rs. 10,081-03 covered by order-in-original R.C. No. 90/88 dated 6.4.1989 together with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of collection till the date of refund....2. The prayer in W.P.No. 578 of 1990 is as follows: .to issue a writ in the nature of the writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 14,389.00 covered by order-in-original R.C.29/89 dated 20.7.89together with the interest at the rate of 18% p: a., from the date of collection till the date of refund and pass....3. In both these petitions, the petitioners paid the duty under mistake of law and have sought for' refund. The authority, the respondent herein, rejected the applications on the ground that they are time-barred under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise & Salt Act...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Naicker and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ14
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment of a learned Judge of this Court by which writ petition Nos. 4839, 4840 and 4841 of 1982 were dismissed. We are concerned with writ appeal Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984 which are directed against writ petition Nos. 4839 and 4840 of 1982.2. The respondents proceeded to acquire certain land avowedly for a public purpose. The appellants have their lands in Survey Nos. 63/1 of Koyambedu village. The appellant in W.A. No. 157 of 1984 has his holdings to the extent of 20 cents while the appellant in W.A. No. 158 of 1984 has his holdings to the extent of 60 cents. Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.6.1975. The substance of the notification was admittedly published between 4.6.1975 and 6.6.1975. The appellant in both the appeals filed their objections by 30th June, 1975 and this fact is borne out from the records produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. The competent...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jayarama Pillai Vs. Union Bank of India Rep. by Its Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ43
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The short facts are these: The respondents filed a suit for recovery of money due on an equitable mortgage. A decree was passed on 3.12.1981. Though as per the judgment a preliminary decree under the provisions of Order 34, C.P.C., was passed, the decree actually drafted by the Court was only for payment of money. It read only as money decree and the necessary provision which should be included in a decree under Order 34 were not found therein. The decree-holders filed an application for passing f a final decree in 1986 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application to pass a final decree. Seeing that there was no decree in accordance with Order 34, C.P.C., the application was not passed.2. Thereafter the Court suo motu amended the decree and brought it in consonance with the judgment. Thus a proper decree under Order 34 was passed. That was done only on...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Valliammal Vs. Periasamy thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ500
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no justification for the lower Court to dismiss the application for amendment in this case. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff's claim was that he was in possession. The defendant contested the same. In I.A.No.298 of 1984 filed by the plaintiff for an interim injunction till the disposal of the suit the Court expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was not in possession and dismissed the application. The plaintiff filed the application for amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.l3i of 1989 stating specifically that in the view taken by the Court it has become necessary for him to pray for possession as ultimately if his title is upheld, he would be prejudiced if consequential relief is not granted to him. This application was opposed by defendant and the Court below has taken the view that the plaintiff having taken a definite stand in the original plaint is not entitled to amend the plaint. 2. The Court below ...
Tag this Judgment!Nithyakalyani Vs. Mahendra Prasad and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2685; 1991(34)ECC190
Bellie, J.1. This petition is by the wife of the detenu Radhakrishnan detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The detention order was passed under section 3(1) of the said Act with a view to preventing the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods.2. The grounds of detention gives the following facts :- Acting on intelligence, on 15-10-1989, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Trichy visited the premises situate at 37-A, Laxminarayanapuram Agraharam, Simmakkal, Madurai-1 and the detenu was found there in possession of 70 gold bars with foreign markings. The detenu did not produce any document to show that these gold bars were licit ones and therefore they were seized. The detenu gave a statement on the same say to the Officers that for the past three years he was doing business in brokerage in buying and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arunagiri Vs. Bata India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR677]; (1992)IILLJ46Mad
Somasundaram, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 372 of 1980 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the said writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. The parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the writ petition. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows :- The petitioner joined the first respondent as a helper in July, 1959. He was in their services for over fourteen years. The first respondent by the letter dated August 28, 1975 terminated the services of the petitioner. The order of termination dated August 28, 1975 runs as follows :- 'We find from your records at our end that : In the year 1973, apart from your availing due leave you kept yourself away from your availing due pay on a number of occasions, obviously, we found it extremely difficult to conduct normal business of the shop because of your unpredictable attendance. This sort of irregularly was brought to your notice for immediate improvement....
Tag this Judgment!R. Ponnu Nadar and ors. Vs. N. Bhagavathi Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)55MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendants 2 to 7 in the suit are the appellants herein. The suit is one for redemption of two mortgages executed on 26.5.1113 M.E. and 24.5.1115 M.E. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the successors in-title of the mortgagors and the defendants are the successors-in-title of the mortgagees. The contention raised by the defendants, before the trial court was that the suit was hot maintainable as it was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 1587 of 1119 M.E. on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, wherein the mortgage deeds were set side and that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai reversed the conclusion of the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for redemption and recovery of possession though the claim for damages was negatived.2. In this second appeal,...
Tag this Judgment!Pappayee Ammal and anr. Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)392MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a spit for recovery of possession of the suit properties, by the respondent herein, who was one of the four brothers who mortgaged the property usufructurily in favour of one Padmanabha Reddiar. The four brothers had also executed a simple mortgage in favour of one Balarama Reddiar. The brothers entered into a partition on 27.5.1976 in which they agreed that they should share equally for discharging the mortgages. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.213 of 1976for redeeming the usufructuary mortgage. In the suit he impleaded the other three brothers as parties and the mortgagee besides other transferees. The suit was decreed on 27.8.1976. By virtue of the decree, the plaintiff became entitled to possession. When he sought to execute the decree the defendants, who ate the appellants in the appeal, obstructed the same.2. The suit was filed on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to be in possession as the plaintiff had been subrogated to the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »