Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
Chidambaram Vs. Ratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC468; (1998)IIIMLJ747
ORDER1. The revision has been filed by the third plaintiff in O.S.No.576 of1988. The petitioner along with eight others have filed the suit for bareinjunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with theirpossession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the suit was taken up fortrial, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.136 of 1995 seeking permission toexamine himself as P.W.2. The lower court has dismissed the said applicationby order dated 15.2.1995. As against the same, the present revision has beenfiled.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the seventh plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and since the plaintiffs 5 to 9 have purchased the property and they are possession of the same, the court below has held that those who are in possession of the properties must be examined first in accordance with order 18, Rule 3A, C.P.C. since the same is mandatory. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in view ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1007
ORDER1. The unsuccessful petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 1/88 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, aggrieved at his judgment in the above case dated 12-12-89 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri in C.C. No. 145 of 1985 dated 9-2-1987 convicting revision petitioner who is the fourth accused for the offences under sections 409 read with 120(b), 409 and 477-A I.P.C. and consequently sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months more on the second count and on the third count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, but all the sentences to run concurrently, which quantum of sentence was modified by the learned appellant Judge by setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami and anr. Vs. Adi Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ320
Raju, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the above second appeal. The first appellant/first plaintiff was a minor who was represented by the mother and natural guardian, the second plaintiff/second appellant. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the son and wife of the first defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant and the fourth defendant is said to be an alienee of item No. 12 in the 'A' Schedule properties. The claim of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that most of the items of properties described in 'A' Schedule are the ancestral properties of the family and the rest of the properties were acquired under a registered will said to have been executed by Rengasamy Reddiar the maternal grandfather of defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the father, mother and step mother of defendants 1 and 2 and also acquired by purchases and mortgage, in the name of the second defendant and third defendant respectively. It is the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kuppan Vs. Jayarama Chetty and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad167; 1995(2)CTC252
ORDER1. This revision is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur ordering for the delivery of the property to the court auction-purchaser. The court auction-purchaser, in pursuance of the sale certificate issued in his favour, filed application for delivery in H.A. No. 72 of 1993 and the judgment-debtor objected for delivery on the ground that he did not file application to take delivery of possession within one year from the date of confirming the sale as required under Article 134 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the delivery should not be effected. The learned Subordinate Judge, rejecting the contention of the judgment-debtor has ordered for delivery. Hence this revision.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the execution Court had ordered for the issue of sale certificate even on 1-10-91 and therefore the starting point of the limitation is 1-10-91 for taking delivery, according to Article 134 of the Limitation Act but the court au...
Tag this Judgment!J. Swamivelu @ John Samuvel Deva Asirvatham Vs. K. Parameswari and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: II(1997)DMC244
Arunachalam, J.1. Petitioner J. Swamivelu @ Johan Samuvel Deva Asirvtham, is the husband of first respondent Parameswari and father of respondents 2 to 4 who are minor daugthers, minor son respectively. First respondent preferred M.C. No. 115 of 1986 before the then II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming a monthly award of maintenance for herself and respondents 2 to 4 from the petitioner herein.2. According to the first respondent she entered into matrimony with the petitioner on 6.11.1973, of which marriage respondents 2 to 4 were born. Petitioner ill-treated her and neglected to maintain her and her children. On 25.12.1984, petitioner deserted them and left the house. Thereafter, he sent a notice to her requesting her to consent for a divorce. First respondent was not agreeable. It was under such circumstances, petition for maintenance was filed.3. First respondent admitted, that she was employed and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 450/-...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnaswamy Vs. Sadras Venkatarama Chetty Charities Under the Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ23
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 6077 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment, which decreed the abovesaid suit (for possession of suit building, filed by the respondent-plaintiff against its tenant, the appellant herein), setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the trial court.2. The plaintiff is Sadras Venkatarama Chetty Charities under the management of Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam Charities, represented by its Trustees.3. The only point urged before me by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff cannot claim exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 2000, Home, dated 16th August, 1976, which 'exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu.... Religious Public Trust and Public Charitable Trust from all the provisions of 'The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that, therefore the relief claimed in the suit can be had only under the abovesaid Act and...
Tag this Judgment!indira Nagar Residents' Benefit Society, rep. by Its Secretary K. Arun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC198; (1996)IMLJ650
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. This writ petition weeks to quash the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands mentioned at the bottom of the G.O.Ms. No. 1235, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 28.11.1988, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, supplement to Part II, Section 2, dated 7.12.1988, under G.O.Ms. No. 1248, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 30.11.1988, published in Part II, Section 2 of the Gazette dated 14.12.1988, under G.O.Ms. No. 173 and 174, Industries (MIJ 1), dated 17.3.1989, published in Part II, Section 2 of the Gazette, dated 5.4.1989, under G.O.Ms. No. 359 Industries (MIJ 2), dated 15.6.1989, Published in Part II Section 2, dated 28.6.1989 and the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in G.O.Ms. No. 469 Industries (MID 2), dated 9.12.1991, published in Part II, Section 2, of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 10.12.1991, in respect of the same lands.2. The purpose fo...
Tag this Judgment!Thamilarasi Vs. R. Velumurugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC262
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The wife, who is the respondent in H.M.O.P. No. 2 of 1992 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, filed by the husband for divorce under Sections 12(1)(a), (Marriage not consummated owing to impotence and 13(1)(ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act has preferred this civil Revision petition against the order in I.A. No. 12 of 1994, allowing the husband's petition for amending the abovesaid original petition.2. The original H.M.O.P. was filed mainly on the ground that there has been no consummation between the spouses because of certain alleged disorders in the health of the respondent, particularly in relation to her vaginal canal. Now, the amendment sought for is for adding mainly the following paragraph, after paragraph 6 of the original petition:-'The respondent is not of very good character. Even before marriage with this petitioner she was having illicit intimacy with her close relative whose name is Raju. The respondent really wanted to marry Raju, but...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Represented by Its Membe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ433
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Despite notice to respondents 1 and 2, they have not chosen to enter their appearance. Notice to first respondent has been served on 6.5.1995 and notice to the 2nd respondent has been served on 10.5.1995.2. The first defendant in O.S. No. 3199 of 1987 on the file of IV Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, has filed this revision against the order of dismissal in C.M.P. No. 581 of 1993 dated 24.1.1994. The suit O.S. No. 3199 of 1987 was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein. The said suit is filed for declaration that the suit building was constructed in accordance with the approved plan and for consequential injunction. The suit O.S. No. 3199 of 1987 was decreed on 12.12.1990. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1990, the defendant in O.S. No. 3199 of 1987 (petitioner herein) filed first appeal but there was 29 days delay in filing the abovesaid appeal the petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 581 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!AugustIn Mary Vs. Gnanaprakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ21
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, refusing to dismiss the E.P. No. 363 of 1995 filed for taking delivery of possession of the property. The suit O.S. No. 1788 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, was filed by the respondent herein against the tenant for recovery of possession of the site after the demolition of the superstructure and the trial court as well as the appellate court namely, the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, granted the decree for possession, as prayed for by the plaintiff. Therefore, the decree holder filed the E.P. No. 363 of 1995 for taking delivery of possession of the suit property. The revision petitioner herein filed the E. Act to dismiss the E.P. on the ground that the decree is not in conformity with Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter to be referred to as Act, and therefore the decree is a nullity and cannot be executed. As th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »