Chennai Court August 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.
Loganatha Mandiri Vs. Seshachala Naidu (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ531
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed in I.A. No. 534 of 1982 in O.S. No. 79 of 1982. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 79 of 1982 to recover the amount of Rs. 2,100 due under a promissory note dated 19,1.1979. The suit was filed on 13.1.1982. According to the plaintiff, the defendant died on 30.1.1982. Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 534 of 1982 under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code to substitute the proposed parties 1 to 3 as legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and rank them as defendants 2 to 4. Chittoor Municipality issued a death certificate stating that the defendant died on 20.9.1981. The trial court pointed out that on the date of filing of the suit Seshachala Naidu was no more. Therefore, no suit can be filed against a dead person. The trial court pointed out that a suit filed against a dead person is a nullity. Reliance was placed upon a decision reported in C. Muttu...
Union Bank of India Vs. C. Arumugha Moopanar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas54(Mad)
Srinivasan J.1. The Union Bank of India, Thanjavur (the appellant herein), lent a sum of Rs. 57,800 to the first defendant (first respondent) on a promissory note dated May 16, 1975, which is marked as exhibit A-1. The second respondent (second defendant) is the father of the first defendant and the third respondent (the third defendant) is the younger brother of the first defendant. They executed a letter, of guarantee on the same day in favour of the bank. An agreement of hypothecation of agricultural implements was also executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the same day. The said documents are marked as exhibits A-3 and A-2, respectively. A mortgage of agricultural lands was created by depositing the title deeds on the same day and the memorandum of title deeds is marked as exhibit A-4. The bank gave acknowledgment of receipt of documents under exhibit A-5 immediately. 2. The first defendant paid a sum of Rs. 20,012.85 and there was a balance of Rs. 89,102 as on October 21, 1980. I...
Shriram Fibres Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC122; 1994(69)ELT4(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration is whether the customs duty is leviable on landing charges as forming part of the price or value of the goods within the meaning of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. This matter has arisen under the Customs Act, 1962 before it underwent amendments in 1988. The relevant Rules applicable are Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. 2. The short facts relevant for the purposes of this case are as follows : M/s. Shriram Fibres Limited, who is the petitioner in both the writ petitions imported several items including caprolactum. In W.P. No. 4103 of 1983 it imported a consignment of 2000 bags of caprolactum and the bill of entry dated 26-9-1981 was filed. The Assistant Collector of Customs fixed the national landing charges at a percentage of .6% and arrived at the landing charges at Rs. 4,762.74. He levied customs duty at the rate of 25% and c.v. duty at the rate of 28.5% plus 5% working out to Rs. 2,972.25. The actual landing char...
S. Packiam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)IIMLJ608
ORDERJanarthanam, J. 1. One Dr. S. Packiam, petitioner herein, having been employed in academic field, it is said, came to be appointed as the Principal of V. O. C. Teachers College, Tuticorin. He is stated to be a post-graduate in Arts, Post Graduate in Science, Post Graduate in Education and also a Doctorate degree holder. 2. The Manonmanium Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, came to be constituted under the Manonmanium Sundaranar University Act, 1990, for short 'the Act' which came into force on 12.6.1990 and the second respondent is the present Registrar. Sec. 55 of the Act provides that the first Registrar of the said University shall be appointed by the Government on a salary to be fixed by them for a period not exceeding three years and on such other conditions as they may think fit. For subsequent appointment of Registrar, enough statutory protection had been made in the shape of Sec. 13 empowering the syndicate of the University to make such appointment. 3. In terms of Sec. 5...
Dayanandammal Alias Dayalammal and anr. Vs. St. Thomas Tamil Church Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ51
Srinivasan, J.1. When this second appeal came up for admission on 29.7.1993 we passed an order that only one question of law required for consideration by us viz. whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are vitiated by granting future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per mensem without any evidence as at present on record and without enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents had taken notice at that time and both counsel expressed their willingness to argue the appeal this week. Hence, we posted the second appeal to this date.2. Learned Counsel on both sides argued the appeal. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that without an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C., the court cannot pass a decree for future mesne profits. It is submitted that under Rule 12(c) of Order 20 the Court has to direct an enquiry into rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the defi...
J.K. Abdul Jabbar Rowther Vs. V.J. Mani Raj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ205
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff, whose suit for specific performance has been dismissed, is the appellant herein. The case set out in the plaint is as follows: The properties described in the plaint schedule belonged originally to the first defendant. They were rented out to five persons. The first defendant was himself occupying one portion and running a printing press. As he wanted to augment his income and for that purpose demolish the superstructure and put up a new construction, he approached the plaintiff and the latter agreed that he would finance him provided a lease of the suit properties is granted to the plaintiff. The first defendant agreed to that course and as the building was in a dilapidated stage, he agreed to vacate the tenants and also vacate the portion occupied by him, demolish the entire building and put up new construction and lease out the entire property to the plaintiff. On 19.2.1988, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant, ...
M/S. Jothi and Com. Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad50
ORDER1. Writ Petitions Nos. 4267 and 6770 of 1993 were filed by one M/s. Jothi & Company with the following prayers:--to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26-12-1993, and quash the same and consequently issue a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and finalise the award of the contract pertaining to collection and conveyance system of common Effluent Treatment Plant at Pammal Palla-varam based on the offer/bids submitted by the petitioner and other tenderers based on the decision of the Tender Committee of the first respondent on 5-1-1993 and pass.....'to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from placing orders on respondents 6 and 7 for pipes and on the 8th respondent from pumps and accept the sameor to deal with ...
Alagirisamy Naidu Vs. Dharmaraj Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ462
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the Order in EP. No. 85 of 1983 in O.S. No. 599 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi.2. Short facts are:- The revision petitioner had filed suit against the respondent and had obtained mortgage final decree. He filed E.P. No. 85 of 1983 for sale of the property in pursuance of the mortgage final decree. That was resisted by the respondent. He claimed that he is entitled to benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 50 of 1982 and so it must be deemed that the decree was discharged. Upholding the objections, the court below had held that the respondent was entitled to benefits of Act 50 of 1982 and had dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in the court below has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the respondent had raised the plea that he is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 ...
K.A. Kunjalu Vs. V.V. Jose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ454
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Even though civil miscellaneous petitions are posted before me today, by consent of both the counsel, C.R.P., itself is taken up for disposal.The defendant has preferred this civil revision petition against the order in I.A. No. 1564 of 1992 allowing the amendment of the money decree passed on 24.7.1992. The said I.A. was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. In the said LA. the amendment sought for is mentioned as follows:The rate of interest as mentioned in the decree is an apparent error while drafting the decree. After having pronounced the judgment as prayed for, the plaintiff is entitled to contract rate of interest from the date of suit till realisation. The prayer in the plaint is also specific to that effect. Therefore it is just and necessary that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to amend the decree with 24 per cent interest from the date of suit till realisation.The said I.A. was no doubt filed under Section 152, C.P.C.2. The only question involved is whet...
Kuppusamy Gounder Vs. Kandasamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ452
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order in E.P. No. 61 of 1985 in O.S. No. 632 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif, Palani. 2. Short facts are; The respondent has obtained money decree against the revision petitioner and to realise the decree debt, he had filed E.P. No. 61/ 85. The revision petitioner resisted the same on two grounds viz., that he had made part payment of Rs. 2,000 and that he was not in a position to pay the decree debt. After elaborate enquiry, the learned District Munsif had held that the alleged part payment of Rs. 2,000 is false and that the judgment-debtor has got sufficient means to pay the decree debt but has been neglecting payment and had ordered arrest. Aggrieved by the said order, the judgment-debtor has come forward with this civil revision petition.3. Mr. Prabhu Rajadurai, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that on the evidence available in this case, the court below ought ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »