Chennai Court July 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.
G. Gowri Vs. B. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ485
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 1993 in O.P. No. 97 of 1991 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner had earlier filed suit in O.S. No. 34 of 1984 for maintenance against the respondent and the trial court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350 p.m. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the revision petitioner filed A.S. No. 732 of 1984 on the file of this Court and this Court had allowed her appeal and enhanced the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 550 p.m. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent had filed appeal in L.P.A. No. 123 of 1991 and it is pending. While so, the revision petitioner filed O.P. No. 97 of 1991 for enhancement of maintenance before the Family Court, Pondicherry. While so, the respondent had filed petition under Section 10, C.P.C in I.A. No. 4 of 1993 praying for stay of the trial of...
B.K. Jayaraman Vs. S.K. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ464
Thangamani, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 323 of 1981 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Madurai. He instituted that suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale under Ex. A-1 dated 25.12.1975 entered into between himself and respondents 1 to 3. The terms of the agreement disclose that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 85,000 respondents 1 to 3 have received an advance of Rs. 2,000 on that day. The vendors have agreed to reserve a sum of Rs. 22,000 with the plaintiff for the discharge of an earlier mortgage deed dated 6.1.1973 executed by them along with their mother in favour of one Bhagavathi Ammal for Rs. 15,000. They have also agreed to reserve Rs. 5,000 with the plaintiff for obtaining a release deed from respondents 4 and 5 who are their sisters. The appellant was to pay the further sum of Rs. 10,000 when respondents 1 to3 get the tenants vacated from the premises and surrendered vacant possession. The appellant is to keep the balance of sale consider...
P. Rama Iyer Vs. V. Ramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ481
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 5 of 1986 in O.S. No. 32 of 1961 on the file of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner had obtained a money decree against the respondent. He filed an execution petition to realise the decree debt. That was returned. After return the execution petition was represented after a delay of three years and seven months with a petition in E.A. No. 5 of 1986 for condoning the delay, that was resisted by the respondent. After enquiry, the court below has dismissed the petition praying for condoning the delay. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner in the court below has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. S.Parthasarathy learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the execution petition was filed in time and so there was no faulton the part of the revision petitioner that the delay was only in numbering the same...
P.V. Rajaram and ors. Vs. S.T. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ392
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 365 of 1987 in O.S. No. 169 of 1983 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. Short facts are : T.V. Seshaiyar had filed the suit against the first revision petitioner, now dead and Jawaharlal, the second revision petitioner on the foot of a mortgage and obtained preliminary decree. Then he filed application for passing of final decree. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, T.V. Seshaiyar died. S.T. Subramanian, the respondent herein filed application for impleading himself as legal representative of deceased T.V. Seshaiyaron the ground that as per the will executed by T.V. Seshaiyar, he is entitled to collect the suit amount. This claim was resisted by the revision petitioners herein. After enquiry the learned Subordinate Judge had found that the disputed will was validly executed will, left by T.V. Seshaiyar and had impleaded the respondent herein as legal...
K.R. Veluchamy Naidu Vs. K. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ549
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The parties in all these civil revision petitions are the same. They are landlord and tenant in respect of the land covered by these proceedings. C.R.P. No. 1441 of 1992 is directed against the order passed in R.A. No. 1543 of 1990 on the file of the Revenue Court, Salem at Udumalpet in which the Revenue Court had passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 (Act 38 of 1990) which I shall hereinafter refer to as the 'Rent Relief Act.'2. C.R.P. Nos. 3885 and 4255 of 1987 are filed by the tenant and landlord respectively against the order passed in O.P. No. 35 of 1985, in which the Revenue Court had ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1976-77 to 1983-84, disallowing the landlord's case that there was arrears of rent from 1970-71 onwards. C.R.P. No. 4068 of. 1986 is directed against the order passed in O.P. No. 22 of 1979 by th...
Periaswami Vs. V.P. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ468
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S. No. 8 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, in which the learned Subordinate Judge had allowed the appeal, reversing the judgment passed in O.S. No. 2443 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Karur.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner had filed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,000 and interest thereon due on a pronote. His case is briefly as follows: The defendant had received Rs. 4,000 and executed a pronote on 4.7.1974 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to pay interest at 12% p.a. He had not paid any amount. So the plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 995 of 1978 for half of the principal amount and interest, inasmuch as Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 was then in force. In that suit, the plaintiff got a decree as prayed for. Later, Act 40 of 1978 was repealed by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. Thus, the plaintiff has become entitled to the remaining part of principal amount and half of inter...
State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Dharam Granites Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad98
ORDERK. A. Swami, CJ.1. At the 'stage of admission, the respondents have put in appearance. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. The grievance made by the appellants in this appeal is that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the solvency certificate of a Director of the petitioner,, company is sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Rules is not valid. The Rules prescribed that in order to prove the financial resources of the applicant, he has to enclose a solvency certificate. The company cannot be equated to a Director of the company; therefore, the solvency of a Director of the company cannot be taken as a proof of the solvency of the company, which is the applicant for grant of a mining lease. It is also further submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have issued a direction to grant permission, when the State Government, under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, is entitled to co...
Natarajan and ors. Vs. D. Periyasamy Gounder and Company by Its Partne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ473
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 466 of 1987 in E.P. No. 139 of 1983 in O.S. No. 219 of 1969 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.2. Short facts are: In execution of the money decree obtained in O.S. No. 219 of 1969, properties were brought to sale. The revision petitioner claim benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and want to nullify the decree. After enquiry, the court below had given a finding that revision petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the said Act. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition is filed.3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that originally there were 2 judgment-debtors. The second judgment-debtor died leaving behind him, three heirs and as on today, there are four judgment-debtors and each of the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor is entitled to 1/3 share in the properties being proceeded with and if 1/3 share is taken...
A.M. Naveen (Minor) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad161a
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief :--'Writ of declaration declaring Rule 157(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as ultra-vires and opposed te Section 89(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.....' 2. The petitioner claims that he is an inter State carriage operator, operating his vehicle on the route Tiruthani to Panapakkam via, Vanganoor, R. K. Pet, Sholinghur, Banava-ram Kaveripakkam and Ocheri, that the vehicle was checked on 9-12-1990 at 5.55 p.m. by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kancheepuram at 71/6 kms. on Madras-Vellore road and noticed certain irregularities for which after issuing a show cause notice and considering the representation, the permit of the petitioner was suspended for a period of ten days with option to compound at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day. The proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority dated 9-3-1994 awarding suspension is said to have been receiv...
WavIn India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT782(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public limited company, having its registered office at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras. It has imported as per the bill of lading and the packing certificate dated 22-10-1984, on high sea sale basis, materials valued at Rs. 1,00,05,000/-. It has been assessed and accordingly subjected to a demand of customs and other duties, according to it, in all Rs. 4,24,025/-. The duty, as listed by it, is :(a) additional customs duty (countervailing duty) at 35% and surcharge at 8% (in all aggregating to 26.75%) under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (b) cost of packing material at Rs. 450/- per metric tonne for calculating the customs duty at 75%; (c) landing and stevedoring charges for calculating the customs duty; (d) cost of packing material, landing and stevedoring charges in the assessable value for the levy of additional customs duty and surcharge thereon; (e) customs duty in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of additional customs duty an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »