Chennai Court September 1993 Judgments
A. Sahadevan Pillai and ors. Vs. T. Vasanthakumari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ60
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. A.A.O. No. 994 of 1992 is against the order of the District Judge of Kanyakumari, dated 13.10.1992 in O.P. No. 26 of 1991. The respondents in O.P. No. 26 of 1991 are the appellants in this appeal. A.A.O. No. 1139 of 1992 is preferred against the order of the District Judge of Kanyakumari, dated 13.10.1992 in O.P. No. 66 of 1991. The sole petitioner in O.P. No. 66 of 1991 is the appellant in the second appeal. The 1st appellant A. Sahadevan Pillai is the husband of the 2nd appellant Bhagavathi Ammal and father of the 3rd appellant Krishna Kumar. The 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The respondents herein are the petitioners in O.P. No. 26 of 1991 and respondents in O.P. No. 66 of 1991. Both the petitions have been disposed of by the learned District Judge by a common order dated 13.10.1992, evidence having been recorded in O.P. No. 26 of 1991 the parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in A.A.O. No. 994 of 1992.2. The short point that ar...
Tag this Judgment!B. Puthan Vs. B.M. Billan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ105
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 3278 of 1991 is filed against the order made in I.A. No. 186 of 1991 in O.P. No. 1 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Uthagamandalam. O.P. No. 1 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner herein against B.M. Billan and B. Rani in the court of the District Munsif, Uthagamandalam under Section 193, I.P.C. and under Sections 195 and 340, Crl.P.C, praying for sanction to prosecute the respondents therein. That O.P. was posted on 12.12.1990 for notice to respondents and Mr. W.P. Sivaraj, advocate entered appearance for the respondents in the O.P. on 6.2.1991 and time was requested for filing counter. But he filed the vakalat on 20.2.1991 and prayed for further time for filing counter. The O.P. was adjourned to 20.3.1991 for the said purpose. But on that date, no counter was filed by the respondents and again it was adjourned to 24.1991 for counter finally. On 2.4.1991 counter was not filed. Again it was adjourned to 12.4.1991 for c...
Tag this Judgment!Ponmani Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas846(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Somasundaram, J., dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the remedy of the appellant is to file a suit in the civil court. The appellant is the widow of one M. Gopal. He gave a proposal for a life insurance policy on August 28, 1978, for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and it was accepted. The policy commenced from September 6, 1979. Half-yearly premium due for March, 1980, onwards was not paid with the result, the policy stood lapsed on March, 1980. The life assured submitted himself for medical examination and gave a personal statement regarding his health dated February 11, 1981. The policy was revived on April 24, 1981. The assured died on February 29, 1982. The petitioner prepared a claim for payment of the policy amount on April 10, 1982. After some correspondence, the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on October 8, 1983, calling upon the respondents to pay the amount due under the policy. As ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ajimeer Khan Vs. District Collector and the District Magistrate, Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)144; 1994CriLJ2670
Raju, J. 1. The above petitions were dealt with together since the ground basis for action against the detenus arise out of one and the same occurrence and the learned counsel appearing on either side made common submissions. 2. H.C.P. No. 689 of 1993 has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be the son of the detenu Naina @ Naina Mohammed, detained pursuant to an order of detention in Cr. M.P. No. 2/NSA/93 dated 18-3-1993 pleading for his release. H.C.P. No. 695 of 1993 has been filed by the very same petitioner claiming to be the family friend of the detenu Sahul Hameed, son of Eatu Naina @ Naina Mohammed, detained pursuant to the orders passed in Cr. M.P. No. 3/NSA/93 dated 18-3-1993, paying for the release of the detenu. 3. The common facts that could be gathered from the above referred two orders of detention are that the respective detenus are residents of Thiruppalaikudi in Ramanathapuram District, and that both of them owned diesel launch of their own. During the period when...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Chettiar Vs. Karuppiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ355
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. C.R.P. No. 4497 of 1987 is filed against the order in C.M.A. No. 26 of 1987 on the file of the District Court, Pudukottai, confirming the order passed in E.P. No. 582 of 1984 on the file of the' District Munsif's Court, Pudukottai.2. C.R.P. No. 4498 of 1987 is filed against the order in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1987 on the file of the District Court, Pudukottai, confirming the order in E.A. No. 633 of 1985 in E.P. No. 582 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Pudukottai.3. The short facts are : Respondents have obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner did not execute the sale deed as per the decree, the respondents filed E.P. No. 582 of 1984 for execution of the sale deed by the court. In E.P. No. 582 of 1984 an ex parte order was passed and the court had executed the sale deed. While so, the revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 633 of 1985 to set aside the ex pane order...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ponnambalam Vs. Subdra Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ309
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Vacant site measuring 60 feet east-west and 20 feet north-south, totalling to 1200 square feet, with a thatched hut comprised in Old R.S. No. 248/2A/2 and new R.S. No. 248/242 in Rathiriam Nagar - Old Plot No. 17-A (New Plot No. 17) originally belonged to One Nagarajan. He it is said, agreed to sell the same to one Subadra Devi (respondent herein) for Rs. 15,000 He was stated to have received an advance of Rs. 10,000 and agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration on the date of execution of the sale deed. An agreement of sale was, in fact, entered into between them on 20.7.1981, evidencing those aspects. It seems, despite issuance of a notice by the respondent demanding execution of the sale deed expressing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, the original owner Nagarajan did not comply with the demand so made. Consequently, she, filed the suit in O.S. No. 687 of 1984 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Pillai Vs. Vadivel Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ474
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in O.S. No. 95 of 19S7 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner has filed the suit against the respondent on the foot of a pronote. That was resisted by the respondent. After trial, the learned District Munsif had held that the suit pronote was insufficiently stamped and hence not admissible in evidence and when that was taken out of account, the suit claim cannot be sustained and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. S.P. Subramanian, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit pronote was admitted in evidence by the learned District Munsif and while so he cannot at the later stage of the Suit, say that the document was insufficiently stamped and hence it was inadmissible in evidence. He would further submit that by virtue of Section 36 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. T. Saravana Vs. the Executive Engineer, Mogappair Division, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ132
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner abovenamed has filed the writ petition with the following prayer: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter No. B5/2306/92 dated 16.3.1992 and quash the same and direct the respondents to confirm the auction sale of Plot PC-2 measuring 518 sq. metres in Mogappair West Project for the bid amount of Rs. 6,01,000.2. The 2nd respondent, which is constituted under Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, is a body corporate entrusted with the functions and powers enumerated under Chapter II-A of the said Act. In terms of the said statutory provisions, the 2nd respondent had undertaken various urban development projects with World Bank assistance in and around Madras. The 2nd respondent had also constituted the Sites and Services Committee/3rd respondent with respect to allotment, sale and disposal of the developed sites or plots in the Urban...
Tag this Judgment!Nanammal and ors. Vs. Perumal Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ304
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P. No. 37 of 1986 in O.S. No. 262 of 1977, passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukottai. This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P. No. 37 of 1986 in O.P. No. 262 of 1977, passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.2. Short facts are: One Ramasamy Naicker had filed the suit against the respondent for money and had obtained a decree. Execution was laid by his legal representatives against the respondent for realisation of the decree amount by arrest. That was resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif, had held that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal representatives have come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. N. Jayabalan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Represented by Its Branch Manager Vs. Akilandam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ644
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These civil revision petitions are directed against the orders passed in I.A. No. 2365 of 1986 in O.S. No. 319 of 1984 I.A.S.R. No. 1631 of 1986 in O.S. No. 319 of 1984 and I.A. No. 518 of 1988 in C.M.A.S.R. No. 9988 of 1988 respectively.2. The short facts are the revision petition has filed a suit against one Mookkan on the foot of a promissory note. The said Mookkan died on 18.2.1986. Counsel for the said defendant filed a memo on 23.6.1986 informing the fact that the sole defendant had died. The revision petitioner filed LA5R. No. 2076 of 1986 on 19.8.1986 to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Mookkan. Since that application was filed beyond the time-limit, without any application to condone the delay, that was rejected on 8.9.1986. There after on 20.10.1986, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 2365 of 1986 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 154 days. That was resisted by the respondents herein. After enquiry, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »