Chennai Court August 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.
L.A. Builders Private Limited by Its Director Mr. Arjun Gokaldas Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ678
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Advocate, for applicant and Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate for respondent. The plaintiff in the above suit is the applicant in the above application which is for an injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his agents, servants etc., from interfering, in any manner, with the peaceful possession of the property described in the schedule to the Judge's summons.2. The applicant filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants etc., from, in any manner, interfering with the peaceful possession of the applicant in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit was filed under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act.3. Short facts are as follows : The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement on 15.12.1993. Under the said agreement, the applicant was authorised to develop the property. The terms of the agreement agreed to between the par...
Ganga Engineering Works, Represented by Its Proprietor, V.P. Gangaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ505
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is directed against an order in I.A. No. 94 of 1994 in O.S. No. 93 of 1991. That application is for stay all further proceedings in the suit, O.S. No. 93 of 1991 filed under Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was the contention of the petitioner that an application for rectification had been filed in the High Court under Section 56 of the Act and it posted to 30.6.1994. The trial court has dismissed the application taking the view that the provisions of Section 111(2) of the Act have not been complied with by the petitioner herein and he is not entitled to claim the benefit of stay as provided in Clause (1) of Section 111.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even before the present application under Section 111 of the Act a prior application was presented in the District Court on 3.4.1992. But it was kept up-numbered by the District Judge and ultimately it was returned to...
N. Masilamani and anr. Vs. Kutty Nair (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ114
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The landlords who lost their case before the Appellate Authority but, however succeeded before the Rent Controller have canvassed the same challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A. No. 59 of 1981 dated 31.10.1983 by which order the finding given by the Rent Controller, Kancheepuram made in R.CO.P. No. 32 of 1973 dated 16.4.1981 was reversed.2. The brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the revision are stated hereunder: The rental premises is one of the portions of the building bearing Door No. 108, Kamarajar Street, Kancheepuram so leased out to the first respondent long back and the quantum of rent payable by him at the time of the filing of the original petition was Rs. 125 permensem. Though, this is a part of a non-residential building, it was under the occupation and tenancy right of the respondent herein since the other tenant in the adjacent portion has already vacated the premises in question which alo...
Marayee and anr. Vs. Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ501
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Petitioners were plaintiffs while respondents were defendants in the suit.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 1100 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Karur on 16.9.1987 seeking the relief of bars injunction. Along with the plaint, they also filed I.A. No. 1305 of 1987 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the suit property-pathway and file his report and plan. Accordingly a Commissioner had been appointed and he inspected the suit pathway on 22.9.1987 and filed his plan and report.3. During the trial of the suit, which had been contested by the defendants, the Commissioner's plan and report had been marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2. Ultimately, on consideration of the materials, the suit had been dismissed.4. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 2 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Karur. During the pendency of the said appeal, he also filed I.A. No. 4 of 1991 for appointment of another Commissioner to inspect the su...
Sellammal Vs. M. Narayanasamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ503
Govardhan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 183 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,477.85 on the basis of a mortgage executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 16.9.1970.2. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he has stated that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the principal of Rs. 5,110 with interest at per cent per annum and on other grounds.3. On the date of trial the plaintiff being absent, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment dismissing her suit.4. In C.M.P. No. 8766 of 1992 filed before this Court', the petitioner has stated briefly as follows: After the dismissal of the suit for default on 8.8.1987, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the said...
Padmavathi Ammal and ors. Vs. Alamelu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ479
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, dated 24.11.1984 in A.S. No. 145 of 1982 remitting the suit O.S. No. 209 of 1981 to the trial court for fresh disposal as per the directions given in the judgment.2. The case of the plaintiff is one for delivery of possession and permanent injunction against the respondents and the plaintiff relies upon a Will executed by one Gomathi Ammal in his favour on 14.8.1978.3. The defendants resisted the same contending that Gomathi Ammal had no right to execute any will and she had not validly executed any Will.4. The trial court after considering the evidence placed before it, has held that the Will executed by Gomathi Ammal is true and valid and it was executed while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to right-over the suit properties and granted a decree as prayed for.5. Against the said judgment and decree, of the trial court, the d...
The Government of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. S. Palayam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ116
Srinivasan, J. 1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the writ petition for issue of certiorarified mandamus quashing the letter of the appellant bearing No. 92793/ Court-V/93-2, dated 29.9.1993 and direct the appellant to pay the Overseer on the scale of Rs. 1,640-Rs. 2,900 from 1.5.1992 to the first respondent and from 18.11.1992 to the second respondent as recommended by the Registrar of the High Court. It is not in dispute that, before the revision of scales of pay, at the instance of the Vth Pay Commission, the scales of pay for Assistant which was later designated as Assistant Section Officer was same as scale of pay for an Overseer. Then the Pay Commission filed its report, revising the scales of pay, that was accepted by the Government and the scale to pay of the Assistant was revised into Rs. l,640-Rs. 2,900. But the scale of pay relating to the Overseer was not revised. The High Court made a recommendation that the position of the Overseer was equivalent to the position of the A...
Gandhi Rural Development Educational Trust Represented by Its Chairper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ126
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition was originally for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent to grant affiliation to the Jayaram College of Engineering under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, (A.I.C.T.E.). The prayer has since been amended in W.M.P. No. 16532 of 1994. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider the application for the grant of affiliation for the year 1994-95 after making an inspection of the premises and without insisting on the prior permission of the State Government.2. The petitioner Trust was established in the year 1991. It is said to be a charitable and philanthropic trust for promoting the cause of education, the progress of the Rural people and the growth of Industrial and Technical Education. They filed an application on 25.1.1993 before the third respondent seeking approval for the opening of an Engineering College with an intake of 60 students in three branches for th...
T.A. Balasubramaniam Vs. Kunjammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ626
Govardhan, J.1. A.S. No. 934 of 1982 has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 370 of 1981 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.2. Tr. Appeal No. 426 of 1985 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 596 of 1981 who is incidentally the defendant in O.S. No. 370 of 1981.3. O.S. No. 370 of 1981 is a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction and for dividing the A schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot two such shares in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit.4. O.S. No. 596 of 1981 is a suit filed by the plaintiff in the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 370 of 1981 is briefly as follows: The father of the plaintiffs and the defendant one Ardhanari Poosari executed a registered Will on 10.5.1975 with reference to his immovable properties and...
T. Suthendraraja and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1496
Arunachalam, J.1. An unfortunate episode of non-reconciliation between the defence lawyers engaged as State Brief Counsel and the State, on the quantum of fees payable to those counsel, has led to a grinding belt, of the trial in C.C. No. 3 of 1992, on the file of Designated Court, Poonawallas, which is now known as Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, If only the defending counsel and the State had viewed with care and concern the liberty of the accused and their right to a speady trial vis-a-vis. the obligation of the State of reasonably provide for the defence of these indigent accused, this impasse could have been avoided. 2. While the defending lawyers, after acceptance of their appointments as State Brief Counsel, have demanded payment of fees on par with prosecuting counsel the State has chosen to point out the rules fixing the fee at Rs. 50/- per diem or such lesser fee as may be fixed in the discretion of the Court in the case of work lasting less than a full day, subject to a max...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »