Chennai Court October 1994 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.
R. Ramadoss and anr. Vs. Syed Shahabudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ227
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. The landlords are the petitioners herein. The landlords filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlords the petition premises is in a dilapidated condition and it is aged about more than 100 years old. According to them a part of the building was pulled down since it was encroached on the Government land. The landlords submitted that they are having sufficient means to demolish the existing building and put up a new superstructure, but they did not obtain any sanctioned plan for constructing new structure. Since the building is very old, according to the landlords they are entitled to file a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore according to them they require the petition premises bona fide for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Originally there are three te...
Indian Commerce and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swadharma Swarajya Sangha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas719(Mad)
Govardhan, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows : The defendant, a limited company under the Companies Act, is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the ground floor of premises No. 29, Broadway, Madras-1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000. The tenancy is as per the English calendar month. The plaintiff is a religious and charitable institution recognised under section 25 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not applicable in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant with the expiry of December, 1981, and called upon the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession thereof. The defendant has not vacated and handed over vacant possession. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendant in its written statement contends as follows : The suit filed by Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam, one of the directors of the plaintiff who is not autho...
A. Jayathilakam and ors. Vs. S. Dhanasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ519
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.E.A. No. 788 of 1992 in R.E.P. No. 177 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor. The respondent/ decree-holder obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor in the suit O.S. No. 169 of 1983. The decree is dated 17.3.1989. The execution petition was filed on 11.9.1989. The property was brought to sale on 15.10.1992 and there was no bidder. The decree-holder filed R.E.A. No. 788 of 1992 under Order 21, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to bid and set-off, and permission was granted by the executing court. It is against that order, the present revision is filed by the judgment-debtor.2. Before this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the executing court was not correct in granting permission to the decree-holder to bid and set-off in the second sale. According to the learned Counsel, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›