Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
Thangaraja Padayachi and anr. Vs. Natesa Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC196
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned District Munesif, Panruti. allowing the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 890 of 1993 in O.S. No. 591 of 1987 for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the property shown as B schedule in the amendment petition. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit for mandatory injunction for the removal of the fence shown as 'X' 'Y' in the plan. Subsequently this petition was filed alleging that the defendants/petitioners herein have encroached upon 915 sq. ft. of the property east of the fence and they must be permitted to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration and also for recovery of possession. This was resisted by The defendants but the lower court has ordered for the amendment of the plaint.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. Ragahavachari would contend that the relief sought for in the plaint is only mandatory injunction in respect of a fence show...
Tag this Judgment!Sesamma Joy @ Chakko Mathew and anr. Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC152
ORDERArumugham, J.1. The counter-petitioners in M.C. 21 or 1992 before the Assistant Collector and sub Divisional Magistrate, Padmanabha puram aggrieved by the Order made in M.C. 21 of 1992 dated 21-4-1992, are challenging the same by filing this revision for its want of legality and propriety.2. The impugned order under this revision passed by learned Assistant Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate is extracted as hereunder :-'The petitioner has alleged that the counter-petitioners mentioned above have encroached the poramboke land in the catchment area of Chittar Dam I in R.S. No. 52/2 of Kaliel village of vilavancode Taluk thereby caused nuisance to the public who are dependent on the dam water for their agricultural and other essential purposes. The encroachment are reducing water storage capacities of the reservoir and thus farmers at tail end have insufficient water availability. The act of encroachment in the above dam sites, have caused heavy loss and nuisances to the agricul...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanagunaseeli Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2849; 1995(2)CTC610
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant Gnanagunaseeli was accused in S.C. No. 118/86 on the file of the Court of Session, South Arcot Division, Cuddalore. She was found guilty under Ss. 302 and 203, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to R.I. for life imprisonment under S. 302, I.P.C. and R.I. for one year under S. 303, I.P.C. with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are : (a) one Daniel Appadurai (since deceased) got profitably employed as an Air Condition Mechanic at Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The accused is non-else than his wife. The spouses had two off springs, one female (P.W. 1) and another male (P.W. 2). The spouses along with their kids had been living at Door No. C. 41, Block No. 2, Neyveli Town Ship. The accused was also employed at Neyveli Lignite Corporation as an Assistant. (b) P.W. 3 is their neighbour. One Gopalakrishnan is the husband of P.W. 4. P....
Tag this Judgment!S. Gunaseelan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC543
ORDERT. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by an accused in C.C.No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Designated Court No. III, Madras, who has been released on bail on 23.6.1995.2. When the matter came up for admission before us, we felt doubt about the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, hence, we directed the office to post the matter hear regarding maintainability and heard Shri P. Rathinam, Learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri I. Subramaniam, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents on 3.7.95.3. The reliefs claimed in this petition for habeas corpus are to issue a writ, order direction in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus.(i) directing the respondents 1 to 4 to comply with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration : 1980CriLJ930 in letter and spirit;(ii) directing the first respondent to pay a fair and just compensation to the petitioner herein for the illeg...
Tag this Judgment!G. Moulana Saheb and anr. Vs. Sub-registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ486
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the Checkslip issued by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District for payment of the stamp duty for the award presented by the revision petitioner. The arbitrators were appointed at the request of the petitioners relating to their property dispute, and the arbitrators passed the award on 26.9.1988 alloting properties to the parties to the award. This award was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Tirupathur for registration and the Sub-Registrar treating this document as a partition deed under Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directed for payment of the necessary stamp duty on this document. Challenging this order of the Sub-Registrar, the Revision Petitioner herein filed the suit before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District to set aside this order and the Subordinate Judge issued check slip for payment of the stamp duty on the document viz., th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Anand Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1023
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register and investigate the case on the information available to them with regard to the informatory speech of criminal intimidation of assassination of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made by Dr. Subramania Swamy on 18-3-1995 and 4-4-1995 at Tambaram and Pudukkottai respectively as per publication in 'Indian Express' dated 7-4-1995. 2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate of this Court has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation, since the interest of public are involved. The petitioner is seeking a direction, directing the respondents to act on the basis of a newspaper report. Normally this Court cannot rely upon newspaper reports. If at all any one wants to rely upon the newspaper reports, they have to establish the averments made in the newspaper report by some independent evidence. Hence, I do not think it is advisable to act upon the n...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shanmugham and Two ors. Vs. S. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC461
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The defendants in the suit have filed the above revision against the order, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 410 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, praying for a relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit property as common passage.2. The Plaintiff, the respondent herein, has filed an application, I.A. No. 1401 of 1994 seeking for an amendment for the relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that after the receipt of the order of interim injunction, the petitioners herein had constructed a septic tank in the suit property which completely obstructed the suit common passage. Further, the petitioners have put up a balcony projecting the suit passage and as these constructions have been put up pending the suit, the petitioners have filed the application for amendment of the plaint in order to seek the relief...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rathinasamy Vs. the Judicial Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC434
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The second respondent herein has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the cheque given by the petitioner was dishonoured, the case is pending before Judicial Magistrate, No. II,Erode, Periyar District in C.C.No. 23/95. The petitioner has filed C.M.P. 2105/95 seeking permission to examine two more witnesses and the Handwriting Expert. The trial Magistrate by his order dated 25.5.95 has dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no bona fide on filing the petition and the intention of the petitioner is only to delay and protract the proceedings. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to call for the records from the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode and to quash the order in C.M.P.No. 2105/95 dated 25.5.95 in C.C.23/95.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to let in evidence and this would violate his fundamental right to have e...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Sri Vidya Lorry Service Vs. Additional Labour Court, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad284
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. As neither the learned counsel for the appellant nor the appellant appeared on 5-7-1995 this appealwas directed be posted for dismissal today. Today also neither the learned counsel for appellant nor the appellant is present. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default. There will be no order as to costs.2. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Sathiyamoorthy Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas142(Mad); 1995(79)ELT365(Mad)
Jagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated January 27, 1995, which is the consequential order of the second respondent in his proceedings dated October 25, 1994, and further to direct respondents Nos. 2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the movable and immovable properties situated at No. C-10, Housing Board Quarters, Todhunter Nagar, Saidapet, Madras-15. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After a full-fledged enquiry, he has passed an order on November 4, 1993, imposing a penalty of Rs. 18,100 for such contravention. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was seized from the petitioner's house and that amount was adjusted towards the penalty and the petitioner was direc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »