Chennai Court December 1992 Judgments
Chemical and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Karisiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ383
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner herein. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 280 of 1988, out of which this revision arises, for permitting them to sue as indigent persons. The said original petition was allowed and against the said decision, this civil revision petition has been filed by the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent in the original petition.2. In the original petition, the Government did not file any counter or any report, stating that the O.P. petitioners have any property. No doubt, the contention of the revision petitioner in the original petition is that the O.P. petitioners have got properties, but that the said fact had been suppressed. Even assuming it to be true, the revision petitioner cannot be called an aggrieved party against the order that has been passed. It has also been held in Kalimuthu Servai v. Govindaswami Servai : AIR1961Mad71 , that the true principle in all cases of granting leave to sue in forma pauperis is that it is primar...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Bhaskar Vs. B.P. Shiva
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2685
ORDER1. The petitioner was the accused C.C. No. 13659 of 1989 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, which was one instituted by the respondent - complainant for refraction or violation of the provisions of Section 499, punishable under section 500, IPC. 2. The sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint was that in the process of exchange of legal notices between them, the accused was stated to have incorporated certain scurrilous imputations against the complainant in the notice issued by him. The notice so issued by the accused, it is said, had also been circulated to the friends and relations of the complainant. Consequently, it is said, the good name and fame enjoyed by the complainant was brought down and he was despised and neglected in many social functions by his close relatives and friends circle. 3. After receipt of process, the accused entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice and before ever the trial commenced, he came forwa...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpal Pillai Vs. Palaniswamy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1992
Reported in: I(1995)DMC67
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts below has preferred this appeal. The Suit O.S. No. 1063 if 1979 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, is for declaration of the plaintiff's alleged title to the suit property and for consequential injunction, or alternatively for partition of his 2/3rd share in the suit property, which is in extent of 66 cents in R.S. No. 700/4 out of a total extent of 78 cents therein. The plaintiff based his title on Ex. A6 dated 23.5.1979, a sale deed in relation to the suit property executed by one Vridhambal and her daughter Rani in favour of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, the said vendors under Ex. A6 got the property under a settlement deed Ex. B1 dated 21.12.1938 (registration copy of which is Ex. Al) executed by the 1st defendant, his father Murugesam Pillai and brother Manickam Pillai in favour of the said Vridhambal and Rani. Under the said Ex. B.1, the said Vridhambal was given life interest an...
Tag this Judgment!Sivandhi Adityan Vs. Additional Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas616(Mad); 1994CriLJ1149
Janarthanam, J.1. Ramachandran Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'the company') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), having its registered office located at No. 42, Rajaji road, Madras-1. Sri Jahanbus Harmushaw Tarapore, Sri Narayanswamy Srinivasan, Sri B. Sivanthi Adityan, Sri Narayanswamy Ramachandran, Sri K. R. Ramabhadran and Sri K. Ramachandran are the directors of the said company. 2. Under rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rules'), every company shall before April 30 of each year, deposit or invest, as the case may be, a sum which shall not be less than 10 per cent. of the amount of its deposits maturing during the year ending on March 31, next following in any one or more of the four methods of investments prescribed therein. The company was stated to have committed defaults in complying with the provisions of rule 3A thereof in respect of deposits maturing during the years ending with March 31, 1...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mani Vs. A. Chandranath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ597
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition by the judgment-debtor-respondent in R.E.P. No. 172 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Krishnagiri, is against the order dated 2.12.1991 in the said petition for his arrest.2. Admittedly, pursuant to notice under Order 21, Rule 37, C.P.C. the judgment-debtor appeared before the executing court and filed his counter to the said execution petition for his arrest and detention in prison. No doubt the petitioner was paying several amounts towards the decree amount on different dates, on which the execution petition was posted. But, on the abovesaid date 2.12.1991, he did not appear before court and he did not also pay a sum of Rs. 6,000 which he was directed to pay in the preceding hearing date. Therefore, he was set ex parte by the impugned order and the execution court below, observingordered arrest by 31.12.1991.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is against the procedure prescribed under...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Swami and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas932(Mad); (1993)IMLJ483
Mishra, J. 1. A private limited company carrying on business as exporters of various goods and claiming to have been appointed as the sole agent for export of switchgears by the defendant, a public limited company, by letter dated September 2, 1967, has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 by way of damages and for costs. A learned single judge of this court has dismissed the suit, holding that section 294(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956, operated as a bar to the maintainability of the suit, and that besides the force majeure clause in the agreement completely answered the suit claim of damages. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 2. The plaintiff's case has been that the defendants who are manufacturers of switchgear equipment, by its letter dated September 2, 1967, appointed the plaintiff as its sole agents for export of switchgears. The plaintiff was appointed as the sole agent to represent the defendant in the areas covered by the Middle East, Africa and South Eas...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal and anr. Vs. Sellani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ436
Bellie, J.1. The defendants 2 and 3 against whom the suit for declaring the plaintiffs entitlement to the suit property, for recovery of the same from them, and for mesne profits was decreed are the appellants. The plaintiff Sellani Ammal filed a suit alleging as follows:The suit properties of wet lands of an extent of 6.61 acres described in the B Schedule of the plaint originally belonged to one Krishna Rao who by a deed dated 29.1.1984 endowed the properties for performance of pooja, neivedyam and other ubhayam to Lord Nataraja at Chidambaram. He also appointed Vrishabadwaja Dikshidhar to be the trustee of the properties to manage the same and do the said poojas etc., As per the deed, after the said trustee, his sons and grand-sons are to manage the properties and do the poojas etc. The trustee or his heirs will not have any power to alienate the properties. Accordingly, Vrishabadwaja Dikshidhar acting as trustee was in possession of the properties and he was doing poojas etc. After...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnamurthy Vs. Executive Director, Bhel Trichy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1084Mad
V. Ratnam, Actg. C.J. 1. By consent of parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order passed in W.M.P. No. 7988 of 1992 in W.P. No. 5586 of 1992. In W.P. No. 5586 of 1992, the appellant has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the National Apprenticeship Certificate under Section 21 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, and for a direction to the respondent to provide appointment to the appellant in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., under Section 21 of the Apprentices Act. Pending the writ petition, the appellant in W.M.P. 7988 of 1992 obtained an order on July 22, 1992, directing the respondents to permit the appellant to continue to work in the N.M.R. vacancy in the 2nd respondent company at Ranipet until further orders. Subsequently, 2nd respondent filed W.M.P. No. 17051 of 1992 for vacating there interim direction granted on July 22, 1992. The learned Judge, in the course of the or...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyamperumal Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Manivel Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ421
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in this second appeal against the concurrent decree given by the courts below, declaring the title of the plaintiff 1st respondent to the suit property and granting consequential injunction. Pending appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 8 likewise. The 2nd respondent also died and his legal representatives were brought on records as respondents 3 to 6.2. The suit property is a vacant site of about 5 cents. It originally belonged to Velayutham Chettiar and Subramania Chettiar was his son through the first wife and the 1st defendant who is the 2nd respondent herein and the 2nd defendant-appellant are the sons of the said Velayutham Chettiar through his second wife. In the family partition Ex.A-11, dated 28.8.1920 the suit property was allotted to the said Subramanian Chettiar. On his death in about 1927, Subramania Chettiar's wife Velayi Ammal enjoyed the said property. There ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manimudi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ651
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition to declare that Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is unconstitutional, being repugnant to the very object of the Act.2. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant under the second respondent of premises No. 8, Thulukanam Street, Varadarajapuram, Madras-2. On a rent of Rs. 50 per mensem. The second respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 64 of 1983 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. An application was filed by the second respondent under Section 11 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and in default to stop the proceedings. An order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to pay the rent and as he did not comply with the same, an order was passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act on 8.4.1985 directing him to put the second respondent in possession of the bui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »