Chennai Court December 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.
Andichi Ammal and anr. Vs. Periya Muniyandi Moopar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ514
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil, revision petition is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 1078 of 1993 in O.S. No. 229 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed a suit for declaration and title and for recovery of possession and damages. That was resisted by the petitioners. After elaborate trial, the trial court decreed it. The petitioners took it on appeal. Learned appellate Judge had allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remitted the case back to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law giving liberty to parties to take some fresh witnesses and fresh documents. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a petition under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C., praying to recall D.W. 1 for further cross-examination. That was opposed by the petitioners. After hearing both parties, the learned District Munsif had allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been ...
K. Ramaneeswari and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ353
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt. No. 70, Revenue Department dated 25.1.1993 and quash the same.2. The impugned Government Order came to be passed the 1st respondent upon a petition dated 14.8.1991 filed by the3rd respondent under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking revision of the earlier proceedings of the competent authority declaring the excess extent held by the 3rd respondent's principal one K.P. Kumara Menon and holding that the excess extent shall vest in the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Act.3. The application under Section 34 of the Act was filed by the 3rd respondent on 14.8.1991. Suits were filed by the 3rd respondent as power of attorney agent of the owner K.P. Kumara Menon and his mother Saraswathi Menon, against the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›