Chennai Court October 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Railway Represented by Its Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ590
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendant, who has suffered a decree for a sum of Rs. 92,628.76 in the trial court, has preferred this appeal. The defendant is Union of India, owning the Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager. The respondents filed the suit O.S. No. 153 of 1980 making the following claim. Twelve consignments, each consisting of 3 Nos. M.F.1035 Tractor, were entrusted to the railway administration between April and December, 1977 at Madras by M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipments Limited, Madras (TAFE Ltd.), the consignor for safe carriage by rail to Gorakpur. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff is the consignee. The consignments were delivered to the 1st plaintiff in a damaged condition resulting in damage and shortage to each consignment. The 1st plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs. 92,628.76 in all. The details are set out in the plaint. On demand, the railway effected open delivery noting the damage and shortage at the time of delivery. The loss occurred only due to the...
Perumal Muthuraja Vs. Mookka Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ676
ORDERRatnam, J.1. Even in para 5 of the written statement filed by the petitioner, a reference has been made to the omission to include three items of land, two houses and a gold chain. These items, according to the petitioner were allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff was content with the gold chain. The vendor of the petitioner, had been allotted the four items of properties mentioned in the suit and that had been purchased by the petitioner. In the event of the court ultimately coming to the conclusion that the partition of the year 1971, is not established, it becomes necessary for the parties to pool together all the available properties for partition and work out their rights therein and in that view, the inclusion of the six items of properties appended to the petition in I.A. No. 351 of 1992 becomes necessary and they are accordingly directed to be included as part of the suit properties with reference to which also, the rights of parties have to be a...
S.P. Damodaran Vs. Ramaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas123(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C. C. No. 631 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, has filed this petition to quash the said complaint under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The relevant allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : The accused borrowed Rs. 26,850 on April 24, 1987, and Rs. 9,650 on July 16, 1987. Subsequently, on January 30, 1988, the accused requested the complainant to advance some more money and took out two demand drafts for Rs. 16,000 each. On July 16, 1987, the accused executed a bond to the complainant for Rs. 36,500 borrowed. On October 1, 1989, the accused executed a pronote for Rs. 36,500. On March 1, 1990, he borrowed Rs. 20,000 from the complainant. Thus, a sum of Rs. 88,500 was due and payable by the accused to the complainant, by way of principal amount, apart from interest and bank charges. He paid interest periodically. Thus a total sum of Rs. 56,500 was due to the complainant from the accused as...
S. Mohanakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ111
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to announce the results of the petitioner in respect of Tamil Subject examination of 10th Standard revised course held in the month of March, 1993 and also issue mark sheet.2. When the writ miscellaneous petition came up for admission, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.The facts are : The petitioner was a student of 10th Standard Class in the Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School at Chetpet. After completing the Course, the petitioner wrote the Xth Standard examination in April, 1992, but since he was not successful and failed in the subject Tamil, he wrote the Tamil paper in the supplementary examination held in October, 1992 after taking necessary coaching in the 3rd respondent. As the petitioner had once again failed in the subject (Tamil) he took up the examination in March, 1993 and wrote the same as a private candidat...
K. Vedantham Vs. State and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1882
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to call for the records connected with C.C. No. 1104 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Madurai and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner herein, during the material time when the alleged offence was committed, was working as the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I (Administration - Selection Grade), Madurai Rural District, Madurai. 3. The petitioner has stated in his petition as follows; - 'On 9-4-1991, in the evening, after returning from the office at about 6.00 p.m. in a auto-rickshaw, probably due to the jerks, I developed severe pain. Therefore, I went to a medical shop to get some medicine for pain relief. The chemist in the medical shop wanted me to name a particular pain-killer and I could not do so, because, I did not have a prescription. So, I returned to my house after purchasing Mc. Dowell Whisky from a licenced wine shop close by, and was relaxing. My wife is a heart-patient, and she had three heart att...
Rajangam Vs. Sultan Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ191
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 100 of 1986 in O.S. No. 179 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkazhi.2. Short facts are: The respondent had obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner and had levied execution in E.P. No. 100 of 1986 by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the revision petitioner. That was resisted by the revision petitioner, who would contend that the property being proceeded with is his residential house that he is an agriculturist and so it is exempted from attachment by Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif had held that it was not used for agricultural purpose and rejected the objections and posted the case for sale proclamation. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent in the court below has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. Rajaratnam, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›