Chennai Court September 1992 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.
Corporation Bank Vs. E.W. Stevensors and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ446
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has set aside an ex parte decree against the defendants/respondents in C.S. No. 432 of 1981. He has noted the fact that the decree was passed pursuant to an order made expane in the case for the reason that the counsel for the defendants fell ill and hence he was not able to attend the hearing on the date fixed in the case. The learned Judge has said;To substantiate the claim that Mr. N.V. Balasubramanian was ill on 29.6.1992, a certificate given by Dr. Gopal Ramanthan, M.D., FCCP has also been filed. In view of the above, I am clear that sufficient reason is given for setting aside the ex parte decree.2. Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, stated that in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from app...
S. Arumuga Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Mohamed Shaffi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ149
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The case of the plaintiff is as under:The defendant agreed to sell his properties to the plaintiff on 15.12.1978 bearing door Nos. 174/C4 ground floor and 174/C9 at Tirunelveli Junction High Road, Tirunelveli for a sum of Rs. 70,000. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 15.12.1978. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 5,001 to the defendant. The sale was to be completed within 40 days. According to the plaintiff, the conditions stipulated in the sale agreement was not fulfilled by the defendant within the period stipulated therein. The plaintiff was willing to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice dated 21.2.1979 to the defendant since he was negotiating to sell the property to a third party. Thereafter, a regular notice dated 23.2.1979 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant sent a reply dated 24.2.1979 containing false allegations. Therefore, according to the...
S. Ganesan Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC313
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of mandamus forbearing the respondent-Assistant Collector of Customs, Tuticorin, from bringing the cargo referred to in the petition snipped from Singapore to the petitioner and now lying at the Tuticorin Port, to auction till the survey by the Insurance Company is completed.2. According to the petitioner, he placed an order with Raja Timber Trading Private Limited at Singapore for purchase of timber logs and 1090 pieces of timber logs were shipped per M.V. Mizoram on 263.1992 from Singapore to Tuticorin Port under the invoice. The bill of lading was sent to credit term and the bill of exchange was accepted by the petitioner. The said ship carried another 3629 pieces of timber logs under the bills of lading Nos. S/TUT-4, S/TUT-5, S/TUT-6 and S/TUT-8 from the same shippers to the petitioner under different invoices. On 6.4.1992 the clearing and forwarding agents reported short landing of 1922 pieces and damage. Hence...
C. Narayanaswamy Nadar and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ136
Venkataswami, J.1. Admit by consent, the writ appeals are taken up for final disposal. These writ appeals are directed against a common order of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petitions which challenged acquisition proceedings.2. The grievances of the appellants being common, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants addressed common arguments and consequently we dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.3. Mr. M. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 1381, 1455, 1464 and 1507 of 1991, advanced the leading arguments, and Mr. C. Chinnaswami, learned senior Counsel, Mr. E. Padmanabhan and Mr. M. Padmanabhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in the other appeals, while adopting the arguments of Mr. M. Raghavan, added one or two points also.4. Under the impugned notifications published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), an extent of 459...
Abdul Sathar and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC369; (1993)IMLJ240
Mishra, J.1. Defendants 2, 4 and 6 in a suit for declaration of title to 26/35 shares in the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff/respondent have preferred this appeal against the judgment of this Court, by which the learned single Judge has confirmed the Trial Court's judgment and decree based on a deed of gift. The original plaintiff who is the second wife of the alleged donee (eighth defendant in the suit) filed the suit stating that defendants 1 to 3 were the sons and defendants 4 and 6 were dependants of the eighth defendant through his predeceased first wife. After the death of his first wife, the eighth defendant married the plaintiff as his second wife, who herself was the widow of another through whom she had four children. She did not beget any child for the eighth defendant. The seventh defendant was the brother of the eighth defendant.2. The plaintiff claimed that the eighth defendant was entitled to 26/35 shares in the schedule mentioned properties. On 14.10.1965 he...
S. Chhaganmull Bafna and ors. Vs. Miss. C.G. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ20
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. Civil revision petition No. 26 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 1293 of 1984, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3583 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 27 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C. A. No. 1314 of 1984, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3798 of 1982. The tenants are the petitioners in both these revisions. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are the husband and wife. The landlady is common in both these revisions. The petition premises is situate at No. 3, Kariappa Mudali Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7.2. The case of the landlady in H.R.C.O.P. No. 3583 of 1982 is as under:This petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The tenants are in occupation of a residential portion consisting of four ...
P. Premchand Bandhia Vs. Mrs. Yashbala R. Prohit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ4
ORDERRatnam, J.4.9.19921. This civil revision petition, at the instance of the tenant, has been preferred against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner, by the Appellate Authority, on an application taken out by the respondent herein, under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to this C.R.P., are as follows : The premises bearing door No. 60, Ellis Road, Madras-2, belongs to the respondent and the petitioner is in occupation of the first floor in that property, as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 625. The respondent was in occupation, as a tenant, of door No. 4, IV Cross Road, C.I.T. Colony, Madras-4, belonging to one Sri T.A. Ramachandran and the furniture and other house-hold articles belonging to her, were kept in the rented premises, when the landlady was obliged to be away from Madras and the responden...
D.S. Ravindradoss Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ179
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ or order or direction and in particular a writ of certiorari calling upon the production of the order relating to the notice undated made in DIPR/MS/92 Ext. passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the 1st respondent, quash the same and pass...2. The petitioner is the father of a student studying in llyear M.B.B.S. in the third respondent college. Obviously, the petitioner has admitted his daughter when the college was under the control of the Government.3. Originally the third respondent college was run by a Trust and it was taken over by the then Government in 1989. This was challenged by the Trust before this Court. This Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the takeover of the third respondent college by the Government. However, this Court directed the Government to pay compensation to the trust within a particular period. On appeal, a Division Bench of this Court consi...
G. Suseela and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ197
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These writ petitions are filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to allot seats for the petitioners for the first year M.B.B.S., Course for the academic year 1991-92 in pursuance to the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 dated 29.10.1991. As the point involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the respondents are referred to in this order as per their nomenclature given in W.P. No. 4048 of 1992.2. To understand the point involved in these writ petitions, it is sufficient if we notice the facts averred in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 4048 of 1992, which are to the following effect; The petitioners are aspirants for admission to the first year M.B.B.S., Course of study of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for the academic year 1991-92. They all studied higher secondary courses (plus two courses). In G.O.Ms. No. 381, Educ...
indirani Ammal Vs. E. Chandra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ339
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff Indirani Ammal, who has filed a suit for partition, since she is not satisfied with the decree passed partially has filed this appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging as follows: The plaintiff is the daughter of one Thayarammal by her husband Ezhumalai. About 25 years ago Thayarammal left her husband and came to live with one P.V. Gopalan Nair as his mistress. The plaintiff was brought up by them and she was living with them till her marriage. First defendant was born to Thayarammal and Gopalan Nair Plaint Schedule item 1 house property was owned by the plaintiffs mother Thayarammal and Gopalan Nair which has been purchased by them under Ex.A-1 Sale Deed, dated 19.4.1974. The plaint item 2 land measuring 1.09 acres was owned and possessed by Thayarammal and first defendant which has been purchased by them under Ex. A-2 Registered Sale Deed dated 27.1.1972. Thayarammal was thus entitled to a moiety in each of the said properties. Thayarammal pre-deceas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »