Chennai Court September 1990 Judgments
Zebbc Polymers and Cartons Represented by Its Partner S. Ganesan Vs. B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)44MLJ1
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 10974 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the petitioners in this revision. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the second respondent herein is the third-party against whom the defendants wanted third party notice to be issued under Order 8-A, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. The plaintiff has laid the suit for recovery of amounts due on bills in respect of supplies made by it to the defendants. The defendants inter alia plead that all the transactions were entered into through the third-party/the second respondent, who was none else than a Technical Director of the plaintiff and amounts to the tune of Rs. 44,350 were paid into his hands and the second respondent executed four promissory notes for various amounts as evidencing payments, leaving the date, name of payee and rate of interest blank. On these pleas the defendants took out the applica...
Tag this Judgment!O.M. Muthuswamy Vs. V.R. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)267MLJ1
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In these two appeals the parties are same. The defendant is the appellant in both the appeals - A.S. No. 168 of 1982 is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1547 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, and A.S. No. 225 of 1981 is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was rendered in both the suits on 10.3.1980.2. O.S. No. 547 of 1978 is for possession of the suit properties of l0.32 acres of nanja lands - Q.S.No. 13 of 1978 is for recovery of Rs. 10,416.66 towards past mesne profits in relation to the same suit property for the period from 10.12.1976 till the date of suit, viz., 18.1.1978 with interest and for future mesne profits till date of realisation.3. The respondent-plaintiffs case is as follows:The defendant entered into a sale agreement Ex. B-1, dated 9.9.1976 for purchase of the above said suit properly with the plaintiff, the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.E. Khader Meeran Vs. the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)82MLJ1
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is a registered Class I Con tractor. He was the successful tenderer for the work of providing blacktapping asphaltic with kerb stone and pavement platform in S & S scheme at phase I, Navalpattu, Trichy. He could not execute the work for reasons best known to him, with the result that the tender was cancelled and fresh tenders were invited in Notice No. 3/90-91 dated 22.5.1990 for the same work, fixing 3.7.1990 as the last date for submission of tenders. The petitioner wanted to submit tender for this re-tender and when he approached the respondents for being furnished with copies of the tender schedule, his request was turned down by the impugned order dated 29.6.1990, under which the Superintending Engineer, Tiruchy 1, informed the petitioner as follows:In continuation of your letter cited it is informed that the same work has already been awarded to you and subsequently cancelled since you did not turn up to sign the agreement. While cancelling...
Tag this Judgment!Latchumanan Vs. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ125
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership filed by the first respondent herein. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were partners in the first defendant firm. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers while the third defendant is a junior paternal uncle. The partnership commenced under a document dated 15.4.1964 marked as Ex. B-19. The share contributed by each of the partners was Rs. 1,500 and under the partnership deed they agreed to share the profits equally. The suit for dissolution was filed on 7.9.1972. While the third defendant supported the case of the plaintiff, the second defendant alone contested the same claiming that the partnership was dissolved on 31.3.1970 and the accounts were settled. There was another business by name Narayanan & Company run by the same partners and they had a jewellery shop in Ceylon. According to the second defendant, Narayanan & Company was allotted to the third defendant and the first defen...
Tag this Judgment!Meru Engineers (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Electric Control Equipment Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ257
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This petition is to review my order dated 13.7.1990 dismissing the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that my order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record as I had failed to take note of the relevant position of law with regard to matters arising under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Supreme Court in Anderson Wright Ltd. v. Mohan & Co. : [1955]1SCR862 , has laid down the 4 tests to be considered by Courts in an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The four tests are follows:(1) The proceeding must have been commenced by a party to an arbitration agreement against any other party to the agreement;(2) The legal proceeding which is sought to be stayed must be in respect of a matter agreed to be referred;(3) The applicant for stay must be a party to the legal proceeding and he must have taken no step in the proceeding after a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Elangovan Vs. the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Madras Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)211MLJ1
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to effect separate service connection in the shop owned by the petitioner situate in Plot No. 1542, Annanagar, Western Extension, Madras-600 101 by issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction....3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant bearing No. 1541, Sree Krishna Nilayam, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-101 and the said property is owned by the third respondent. It seems due to certain ill-feelings between the landlord and the tenant/petitioner, the third respondent started creating troubles and disconnected the electricity connection in the said shop. It seems the petitioner had filed a suit on the file of City Civil Court in O.S. No. 8007 of 1987 praying for a mandatory injunction directing the third respondent...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Murugappan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR531(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. Both these petitions are disposed of together since the point raised is common and the parties are also the same. In Criminal M. P. No. 9493, the prayer is to call for the records in C. C. No. 177 of 1985, pending on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Coimbatore, and to quash the proceedings therein as not maintainable and as an abuse of the process of court. 2. In Criminal M. P. No. 9495 of 1986, the prayer is similar, but it relates to C. C. No. 176 of 1985, pending on the file of the same court. 3. The petitioner in each one of these petitions is being prosecuted at the instance of the respondent, who is the Income-tax Officer, Circle-III (3), Coimbatore, for commission of offences punishable under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code and under sections 276C(1) and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. It is the prosecution case that in the normal course of business transactions, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!indirani Surulimani Vs. Commr. for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC548; 1991ACJ554
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Madurai dated July 7, 1981 made in W.C. Application No. 158 of 1979 whereunder the authority below awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to the second respondent herein on account of the death of her husband Thiru George (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'.) 2. The case of the second respondent before authority below was that her husband, the deceased workman, was employed by Thiru Surulimani who is the husband of the appellant as driver on a monthly wage of Rs. 200/-. It has been further claimed that on April 7, 1974 when the workman was driving the car in question, it collided with a lorry and due to the said accident, both the workman as well as Surulimani, the employer, got injured. As a result of the same, the worker died on April 9, 1974 and the employer died on April 11, 1974. The applicant as the only dependent of the deceased workman claimed compensation of Rs. 8,000/-. 3. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!R. Geetha Vs. A.T. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC139
J. Ratnam, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in I.A No. 36 of 1989 in O.P. No. 5 of 1987, holding that that court has jurisdic-tion to entertain O.P.No. 5 of 1987 filed by the respondent herein under Section 25(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, VIII of 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The petitioner and the respondent herein were married on 3-9-1981 and a son was born to them on 6-6-1982 Misunderstandings having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent they are now living apart. The petitioner is residing at Karumpalai No. 581 K.K. Nagar, Madurai while the respondent is living at No 19, L P. Shanmugam Street, Virudhunagar. Having regard to the very Limited scope of the controversy between the parties in this Civil Revision Petition viz., the jurisdiction of the District Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai to entertain the petition in O.P. No. 5 of 1987, it is not necessary at this stag...
Tag this Judgment!J. Velan Vs. G. Muthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ417
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act XXXII of 1956. This Original Petition concerns guardianship and custody of the minor girl Dhanalakshmi alias Chithra aged about 9 months on the date of the petition. She was born to the petitioner/Velan and one M.Nageswari on 23.3.1987 in Madras. The petitioner/father is natural guardian for the minor. The child lost her mother due to jaundice.2. The facts placed in this have disclosed that the marriage between the parents of the minor child took place on 10.2.1986 in Madras, according to Hindu rites and customs. The parents of the minor were residing at No. 21, Kannabiran Koil Street, Perambur, Madras-11. However, unfortunately on 15.10.1987 the mother of the child died due to jaundice. Even before the petitioner could complete all the ceremonies for his wife, respondents 2 and 3 mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »