Chennai Court January 1993 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.
A. Thayammal and anr. Vs. Kaladevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ44
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants, the suit was filed by the respondent for partition and separate possession of her 1/2 share in the plaint schedule mentioned property and for injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The case as set out in the plaint is as follows:The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant and the second defendant is the plaintiffs brother. The plaintiff was married to one Selvaraj Nadar on 29.8.1976. He was a partner in the family business run in the name and style of 'Vairamani and Brothers'. The said business was closed in the year 1978 and in a family arrangement the business was allotted to the plaintiffs husband. Thereafter the plaintiffs husband changed the name of the business as 'S. Kaladevi Dhall Mills' and it was being run by him as a sole proprietor. That was carried on till 31.3.1983. The plaintiffs father died on 17.10.1981. When the plaintiffs husband wanted to...
M. James and anr. Vs. S. Isaac Banerjee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ35
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in Application No. 2548 of 1986 dated 18.7.1986, dismissing the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs herein to grant leave to institute a suit as contemplated in Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is as follows:The Waterbury Memorial Telugu Baptist Church is a public religious trust of which the appellants/ plaintiffs claimed to be members. It is averred that the church was founded hundred years ago and it had been running smoothly ever since. The congregation was the Supreme body in matters of administration of the Trust and the affairs of the church. In order to give a legal structure for the congregation, the Church was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as such it came under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. However, those who were in charge of the management of the Trust failed to file certa...
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Shanmughavadivammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ424
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal against the concurrent decree for a sum of Rs. 5,000 with a charge over the property in question, given by both the courts below.2. The undisputed facts are: The plaintiff borrowed from defendants 2 to 4 a sum of Rs. 5,000 and as security for the repayment of the said sum, usufructurily mortgaged his property under Ex. A-1, dated 14.8.1967 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. Subsequently, the plaintiff sold the said property under Ex.A-1, dated 28.5.1969 to the 1st defendant for Rs. 8,000. Though the sale consideration therefor was Rs. 8,000, the plaintiff received from the 1st defendant only Rs. 3,000 and allowed the 1st defendant to retain the balance of Rs. 5,000 for redeeming Ex.A-1 mortgage. Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed O.S. No. 105 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli for redemption of the said mortgage, claiming that the mortgage was deemed to have been discharged under Tamil Nadu...
Sargunam Ammal Vs. Jayarama Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC545
Srinivasan, J.1. The second plaintiff is the appellant. She came on record as the legal representative of her deceased husband, who filed the suit for partition and separate possession for her l/4th share in the suit properties. The properties belonged originally to the joint family of one Natesan Padayachi and his four sons. Natesan died in about 1940. His eldest son Narayanaswami died in 1945 and his son is the first defendant. The second defendant is another son of Natesa by a name Ramalingam. The first plaintiff was the third son of Natesan and he died after the institution of the suit on 15-9-1981. The fourth son of Natesan was Oovindan, who died in 1970. His sons are defendants 3 and 4 and his wife is the fifth defendant. The family owned about 130 acres of India. The first plaintiff executed a settlement deed on 1-9-1964, marked as Ex. B 1 giving his undivided share to the first defendant to be enjoyed by him for his life and the remainder to be taken by his children absolutely....
Muthu Saraswathi Vs. Commissioner, Hr and Ce, Administration Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad314
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. W. C. Thiruvengadam, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. M. M. Sundaresh, Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, the court made the following order :In an auction held by the Executive Officer of Shri Nagareswarer Temple, Hosur, on 6-11-1992, the petitioner is the highest bidder for a shop for a period of 3 years from 7-11-1992 to 6-11-1995, the rent being Rs. 150/- per month. When it has been sent to the Commissioner, 1st respondent for approval, in view of Section 34 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 28-12-1992 invoking his power under Rule 13 for the purpose of vetoing the lease granted to the petitioner. The notice was sent by the 1st respondent on 28-12-1992 granting 2 days's time for the petitioner who is residing in...
P. Muthuraman Vs. Padmavathi Finance (Regd.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas656(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamad, J. 1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in CC. No. 3504 of 1992 on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, and to quash the same. 2. The complaint was filed under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the complainant, Shree Padmavathi Finance, a partnership firm represented by its partner T. K. Subramani. It was averred in the complaint that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000 and executed a promissory note dated December 3, 1990, to repay the said amount and borrowed a further sum of Rs. 25,000 by executing a second promissory note dated December 3, 1990. After giving credit to the amount paid by the accused a sum of Rs. 20,875 was due under both promissory notes. The petitioner accused issued a cheque bearing No. 659832 for sum of Rs. 20,875 dated March 20, 1992, drawn on the State bank of Travancore, Madras (Main Branch) and signed the cheque as pro...
S. Kuppurathinam and ors. Vs. A.R. Munirathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ507
Thangamani, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial court. They instituted O.S. No. 1187 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram for declaration that the first appellant is entitled to 'D' schedule properties and for directing defendants 1 and 2 to hand over vacant possession of the same. The other reliefs claimed are recovery of vacant possession of A, B and C Schedule properties and for directing the respondent to render accounts of his management of A to D Schedule properties from the year 1975-76 onwards till delivery of possession. Appellants 1 and 3 are husband and wife. The second appellant is their son. The respondent is the son of the first appellant's aunt. The second defendant in the suit is the mother of the respondent. The case of the appellants is that plaint A and B Schedule lands were allotted to the shares of appellants 1 and 2 respectively under Ex.A-4 partition deed dated 13.4.1970. The 'C Schedule properties were purchased ...
P. Venkatakrishna Reddy Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas572(Mad)
Arumugham, J. 1. The first accused before the trial court is the revision petitioner herein. He challenged the correctness and the legality of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1987, dated October 17, 1987, confirming the said conviction of the accused/revision petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three more months for the offences under section 209A(5) and (8) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the records of both courts below are stated as follows : The revision petitioner along with eight others being the managing director and directors of a private company by name Udaya Pipes and Concrete Products Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its office at Madras and branch at Bangalore, we...
Lucas Tvs Ltd. Vs. Kothandapani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR269]; (1994)ILLJ91Mad; (1993)IIMLJ49
ORDERJanardhanam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is:'....to call for the records in I.D.No.347 of 1981 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.12.1983 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case'.2. One V. Kothandapani (respondent-1) was working as a watchman in the Personnel Department of Lucas-TVS Ltd. Padi, Madras - 50 (petitioner) with effect from April, 3, 1978 on a consolidated salary of Rs.375 per mensem. He was terminated from service with effect from April 2, 1979. Again he was taken in service in service in the same department with effect from April 17, 1979 and again terminated from service with effect from April 16, 1980. He was drawing Rs. 525 per month at the time of the last termination. The termination had been challenged by respondent-1 by raising industrial Dispute, which had been refer...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Collector of Madras (Accomm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ681
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The above two appeals are against a common judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 146 of 1981 and C.S. No. 276 of 1983 respectively dated 7.10.1985. O.S.A. No. 176 of 1986 is against C.S. No. 146 of 1981. The defendant the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Madras (Accommodation Wing), is the appellant. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant-the State of Tamil Nadu, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,66,959 with subsequent interest and costs. It is averred in the plaint that the premises known as, 'Rushkeyrum' bearing New Door No. 149, Mount Road, Madras, belongs to the plaintiffs 2 to 8, who are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was the power of attorney agent of the plaintiffs 2 to 7 and property guardian appointed by the court of the eighth plaintiff who is a non-compose-mentis. The premises bearing New Door No. 149, Mount Road, Madras, was taken ove...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »