Chennai Court August 1991 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.
C. Shanmugham Vs. N.S.K. Chokkalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ481
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) of Mayiladuthurai is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioner and he let out the same to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The respondent committed Wilful default in the payment of rent for a period of eight months from July, 1984 to February, 1985. The respondent resisted the application for eviction contending that he has not committed any default in the payment of rent. Before the Rent Controller...
S.P.K. Manickavasagam Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ2
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The civil revision petition is taken up for hearing.2. The order of the Court below is wholly unsustainable. This Court has directed the petitioner herein to withdraw the money by order dated 12.4.1990 in C.M.P. No. 3918 of 1990. The trial Court passed an order in 14.3.1991 directing issue of cheque to the petitioner. Then the trial court passed a suo motu order on 26.4.1991 cancelling the said direction to issue cheque on the ground that it had received a telegram from the petitioner's advocate Thiru S. Mariappan and there is a petition pending in EANo.69 of 1991 for change of vakalat. Neither of the grounds is sufficident to change the direction already given. At any rate, the court had no jurisdiction to suo motu pass an order cancelling the direction to issue cheque. The earlier direction to issue cheque was made pursuant to the order of this Court permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount. If the petitioner's advocate has got a claim as against the pet...
The Food Corporation of India, Represented by Its Zonal Manager and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ225
1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in C.S. Nos. 347 of 1979 and 556 of 1981, on the filed of this Court.2. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid any confusion, we rather prefer to advert to the names of the parties hereinafter instead of referring to their array in either of the suits.3. The East Indian Commercial Company (P) Ltd., (for short E.I.C.C - a lessee of Sri Krishna Jute Mills Ltd., Eluru, Andhra Pradesh) is the manufacturer of jute products. The Bengal Trading Company (for short 'B.T.C.'), a partnership firm, is the selling agent of E.I.C.C. The Food Corporation of India (for short 'F.C.I.') called for tenders for the supply of 71/2 lakhs of gunny bags. The B.T.C. offered a tender and the F.C.I. accepted the same for the supply of gunnies. It was made clear in the tender itself that the gunny bags would be supplied by the E.I.C.C. and the F.C.I. also accepted that position. Accordingly the gunny bags were supplied to...
Smt. Ayyammal Vs. Vellappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ208
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order, condoning the delay of 104 days in seeking to set aside the order of dismissal for default made in a suit.2. The respondent/petitioner filed O.S.No.35 of 1984 for bare injunction. It was posted in the list for trial on 15.9.1989. As the respondent did not appear, it was dismissed for default. An application was filed on 27.1.1990 to set aside the order of dismissal along with an application to condone the delay of 104 days in filing the same. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the reason for the delay is given as follows:I submit that in the month of June, I met an accident and my leg was broken and I was admitted in the hospital and I was advised to take rest in bed for further six months. Hence I was not in a position to meet my advocate to give proper instructions. The affidavit does not set out the year or the date, but it merely states that in June, the respondent is said to have met with an accident....
Mariaprakasam Vs. Maria Mathalasal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ611
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any house or construction of the suit properly, without sanction and approval of the site plan from the Nagercoil Municipality. The Municipality was the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing No. M.M.C. No. 26/6A (old No N.M.CNo. 26/3). The wall on the western side of the first defendant's house fell down and the first defendant had taken steps to re-erect the wall. He applied for sanction to the Municipality on 1.12.1977. The suit was filed on 21.12.1977. The Municipality refused to sanction the plan by an order dated 21.7.1978 after the filing of the suit.2. The trial court held that the first defendant was not entitled to reconstruct the wall without the sanction of the Municipality. On appeal, the learned Judge reversed the conclusion of the trial court-and held that there was no necessity for the first defe...
Rajagopal Vandaiyar and Sons and Another Vs. Joseph Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad127; (1992)IMLJ287
ORDER1. The respondents is R.C.O.P. No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mayiladuthurai arc the petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 51 of 1981 against the respondent for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act VII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned property consisting of three shops with vacant site situated in Road No. II, Cusba Mayavaram. One Thirunavukkarasu was a tenant of the property under the petitioner and he was having a service station in the petition mentioned premises. The said Thirunavukkarasu had put up some asbestos sheet sheds and compound walls for the purpose of his business. The respondents purchased t...
State by Inspector of Police Vs. K. Gnanasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2038
ORDER1. The respondent in Crl. M.P. 68 of 1991 on the file of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madras has filed this petition u/S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order in the above Crl. M.P. 68/91. 2. The respondent herein has filed petition in Crl. M.P. 68/91 u/S. 457 Criminal Procedure Code for return of 4 barrels of Palmail, each weighting 200 kilograms and 2 barrels of cotton seed oil, each weighing 200 kilograms on the allegations that he is running a retail oil sales shop at No. 380/1, Konnar High Road, Ottery, Madras, under calid licence No. 37/89-90 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Civil Supplies) Parambur Zone, Madras and that the above barrels were seized by the respondent police. They were purchased by the petitioner under valid purchase bill. The petitioner was not an accused in Cr. No. 37/91 in which the above barrels were seized and kept in the custody of the respondent. This claim was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the above barrels wer...
P. Mansoor Mohammed Ali Jinnah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC85
ORDERMisra, J.1. An unfortunate delay has occurred in the disposal of this petition, which gives a glaring example how a proceeding in a court of law can be contrived to defeat the very purpose for which preventive detentions are ordered. For this inference we are not required to say much beyond taking notice of the relevant facts;The petitioner, it appears from the facts, has been subjected to proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in May, 1987. On 12.5.1987 the second respondent's officers searched the premises No. 35, Gafoor Sahib Street, Royapettah, Madras-14, and seized Indian currency worth Rs. 17,000 and four bank drafts worth Rs. 20,000 as well as some papers which contained noting for Rs. 2,00,000 and odd. The petitioner, along with some persons viz., Seeni Mohamed and Buhari, was interrogated and according to the respondents, admitted being involved in Rs. 2 crores transactions in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. He was produced, however before...
Yakub Rowther Vs. Poongavanammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ419
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the seven defendants on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A-1 executed by second defendant on 24.4.1967. The same property was sold by the second defendant along with defendants 3, 4 and 5 under Ex.B-10 sale deed dated 2.3.1978 in favour of first defendant. According to the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.B-10 the defendants 1, 6 and 7 interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Therefore the suit.2. Defendants 1, 6 and 7 are contesting the suit while other defendants remained ex parte.3. It is contended that one Sadayan Asari filed O.S.No.290 of 1967 against the second defendant for recovery of amount due under a pronote dated 9.10.1964. In that suit Sadayan Asari got the suit property attached before judgment on 27.6.1967. The present plaintiff who had purchased the property earlier on 24.4.1967 filed a claim petition I.A.No.1972 of 1968 for raising attachment by an order d...
T. Palaniswamy Gounder Vs. A.V.G. Ponnuswamy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ109
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the third respondent in the application before the court below which was one under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute the suit of obtaining the reliefs set out in the plaint. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to refer in detail to the respective contentions put forward by the parties in the court below.2. According to the plaintiffs, by a registered deed dated 7.9.1900 Mandi Venkatanaicker, a respectable and prominent citizen of Erode created a trust, endowing his property for religious and charitable purpose enumerated in the document. By a supplemental deed dated 12.4.1911, more properties were vested for the purpose of carrying out the endowment. The plaint proceeded to state that the trustees were ordained to maintain regular accounts, work out a balance sheet every year and carry out the religious functions and charitable objects enumerated in detail in the documents without any varia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »