Chennai Court October 1995 Judgments
N. Jothi Vs. Rajamani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2435; 1996(1)CTC187
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing a private complaint preferred by respondent No. 1 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts alleged are shortly these :- The petitioner is a practising Adovocate in this High Court. While discharging his professional duty he was approached by Respondent No. 2 to give reply to the notice issued by his wife. He issued a reply on the written instructions from his client, who appended his signature on each page of the reply. That respondent No. 1, herein is the father in law of respondent No. 2 who filed the complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2, herein for an offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, alleging that the averments in the reply notice are made with intention to harm his reputation and that both the accused joined together published the same to lower his reputation and thus they are punishable for the offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Deivendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2209
Kanakaraj, J.1. This referred trial case arising under S. 366, Cr.P.C. and the Appeal on behalf of three accused/appellants arise under the following circumstances. The three appellants along with P.W. 1 and the fifth accused stood charged before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 91 of 1994 for the following charges :- The first charge says that all the five accused had conspired together two days prior to 25-11-1992 to commit robbery in the house of P.W. 5 at Dharmathupatti, Mela Gudalur, an offence punishable under S. 120B, IPC. The second charge was that on 25-11-1992 at about 2-00 a.m. accused 1 to 4 had entered the house of P.W. 5 with guns, Iron rods and other weapons and had committed rioting punishable under S. 148, IPC. The third charge related to accused 1 to 4 in having unlawfully entered into the house of P.W. 5 with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing house trespass and to commit offence punishable with death, thus making themselves, liable under...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. C.V. Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1180Mad
Srinivasan, J.1. The appeal is against the order of learned single Judge dated June 17, 1991 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus quashing the order made by the first appellant in GM/PR/NL/13 dated February 26, 1988 and directing the first appellant to permit the respondent herein to continue his probation. 2. The relevant facts are shortly as follows: The first appellant issued an advertisement through Banking Service Recruitment Board in Advertisement No. 12/86 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Chief Engineer for the first appellant bank. As regards the scale of pay and grade, the advertisement has mentioned that the selected candidate will be fixed on a proper scale so that the total salary would not exceed Rs. 4600/- per mensen at the current rate inclusive of pension if any as per Government directions in addition to provident fund and gratuity as per rules. The respondent herein applied for the pos...
Tag this Judgment!V. Veerapandian Vs. Kalaiselvi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC510
ORDERT. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. Petitioner, Veerapandian, father of the detenu Vinodha, has filed this petition to issue a writ of heabeas corpus directing the first Respondent - Smt. Kalaiselvi to produce the detenu Vinodha, a girl aged about seven years before this Court and set her at liberty and pass further or other orders as this Court deem fit and proper.2. In support of the said petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit, in which he has stated that he is an Assistant Inspector in Internal Audit Department at Vellore and the first respondent is his wife having married her according to Hindu rites and customs on 10.5.1987, that of the said wedlock three children were born, the first child by name Vinodha is aged seven years and the other two children are twins and aged about eight months. He has filed this petition seeking custody of his daughter Vinodha. He has further stated that he is a post graduate in Arts and graduate in Bachelor of Education and was a very affection...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Represented by Its Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ112
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. Though the writ appeal is posted today for orders by the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is treated as having been posted before us, and accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are heard together, because by considering the prayer made in the W.M.P. No. 20001 of 1995 in W.P. No. 12525 of 1995, out of which the writ appeal arises it would amount to considering the main writ petition itself. Therefore we have taken up the writ petition along with the writ appeal, as the decision in the writ petition would dispose of the writ appeal.2. The writ petitioner is an association known as Madurai Manager Karimedu Ram Nagar Market Anaithu Viabarigal Nala Changam represented by its General Secretary and it has sought for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Madurai City Municipal Corporation to resort to the method direct collection of rent from the members of the petitioner sangam either on daily basis or on monthly b...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC582
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Thiruvannamalai in L.A.No. 10/1995 in RC.O.P.No. 18/1994, in which the learned Rent Controller has allowed the petitioner in LA. 10/95 who is a third party to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings.2. The Rent control Original Petition has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the said Interlocutory Application, as landlords seeking eviction of the third respondent in the said I.A., on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of denial of title of the landlords by the tenants.3. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the rival contentions of both parties viz., the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 in the interlocutory application, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the Rent Control original petition even though he has observed that in the Rent Control Petition, it cannot be decided who is the o...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Ramjee and Two ors. Vs. P.B. Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC661
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff who has failed in the trial court is the appellant herein. He is the son of one Lakshmanaswami Naidu who is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant is his brother. The 3rd defendant is the mortgagee under a document dated 9.6.1969 executed by the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and the plaintiff represented by his father and guardian, the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the auctioneer. Defendants 5 to 11 are the purchasers in the auction held by the 4th defendant under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act initiated by the 3rd defendant, the mortgagee.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaintiffs in short as follows:-The plaintiff and defendants-1 and 2 were members of a joint family which had several ancestral properties. The plaintiff is entitled to l/3rd share therein. Certain alienations were made by the 1st defendant which were not for the purpose of the family or for the benefit of the family. They were effected for i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Susila Vs. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadarkalukku Pathiyapatta V.V. Vannia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ184
Srinivasan, J.1. The first defendant, who succeeded in the trial court and failed in the appellate court, has preferred this appeal. The respondent has filed the suit for declaration of its title to the suit property and for delivery of possession besides mesne profits, past and future. Alternatively the respondent has prayed for a preliminary decree for partition of its half share in the suit property and delivery of possession of the same with mesne profits.2. The suit property belonged admittedly to one Mariappa Nadar, who had no issues. On 26.4.1952 he executed a will (Ex. A-1) bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife Sornammal for her life and the vested reminder in favour of the appellant herein. He has referred to the appellant as his adopted daughter. Under the said will, two other items are bequeathed absolutely to Sornammal. The will refers to the fact that the appellant was at that time unmarried and that the testator would perform her marriage during his life tim...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswamy Vs. S.S. Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC40; (1996)IMLJ176
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This Revision is filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P No. 42 of 1988, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur. He filed the petition for eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent, and also on the grounds of change of user and bonafide requirement for own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of his son, who is married and living with the landlord.2. Before eviction proceedings started, the landlord issued notice on 1-11-1988. In that notice, he stated mat there was a prior negotiation between the parties wherein the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises within six months, and on the date of notice, the agreed period is due to expire, and that he was just reminding the tenant about the assurance. In the notice, he has stated that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of his son Ranganathan who is married and has two sons. On 18-11-1988, the tenant sent a reply. He denied the so called...
Tag this Judgment!P. Janakiraman Vs. N. Umadevi and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC196; (1996)IMLJ241
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1530 of 1986 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction against the tenants under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, for owner's occupation and for acts of waste. According to the landlord, he is the owner of the petition premises. The mother of the present tenants Tmt. Rathinam was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 220. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 737 of 1976 under Section 4 of the Act for determining the fair rent. The Rent Controller determined the fair rent at Rs. 738/- per month. The tenant filed an appeal H.R.A. No. 412 of 1982 as against the order passed in H.R.C. No. 737 of 1976. In the appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority determined the fair rent at Rs. 691 per month, payable from t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »