Chennai Court September 1995 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.
Augustine Vs. Ruth Irine Victoria
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad169
ORDERAR. LAKSHMANAN, J.1. The husband is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is his wife. He filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery. The learned District Judge has also ordered the I.A. 975/94 filed by the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Act. The respondent remained ex parte before the lower court. The petitioner alone examined himself as P.W. 1 and also filed the marriage certificate, dated 28-12-1990 marked as Exhibit A. 1. Since the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted, the learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence available on record, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though the prot edure adopted by the learned District Judge in ordering the application 1. A. 975/94 under Section 11(1) along with the main original petition is not correct and he ought to have considered the application before taking up the main origina...
M.T. Carunya Vs. S. Joseph Chellappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC562; (1996)IMLJ409
Srinivasan, J.1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. The husband remained ex-parte. The wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. The said decree has come up before us for confirmation.2. The amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent has raised a contention that there is no allegation in the original petition or proof in the evidence of any adultery on the part of the husband. According to him, the evidence makes out only bigamy and not bigamy with adultery. For this purpose, he places reliance on the definition of adultery in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that Section, the necessary ingredient is that the woman concerned is the wife of another man. According to learned Counsel, in this case, the husband is only having, ifatall,intercoursewithawomanw...
R. George Thomas Vs. S. Lilly Samuvel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC583
Srinivasan, J.1. It is very unfortunate that the learned District Judge has not even chosen to go through either the pleadings or the evidence on record; but granted divorce just because the respondent remained ex-parte.2. Even in the petition filed by the husband, there is no averment that the wife is guilty of adultery. Relevant averments are in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, which read as follows :'But this plaintiff/petitioner came to know that the respondent/ defendant had indulged into immoral conducts with other men illegally except the plaintiff/petitioner in his absence. This offence of adultery of the defendant/respondent was seen by the plaintiff/petitioner on two instances and warned her severely.Subsequently, on one occasion, this plaintiff/petitioner came across few immoral and ugly letters written by few persons to the defendant/ respondent which were kept secretly under her custody so as to affirm the illegal conducts of the respondent/defendant.'It is seen that ve...
R. George Thomes Vs. S. Lilly Samuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC31
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. It is very unfortunate that the learned District Judge has not even chosen to go through either the pleadings or the evidence on record; but granted divorce just because the respondent remained ex-parte.2. Even in the petition filed by the husband, there is no averment that the wife is guilty of adultery. Relevant averments are in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, which read as follows:- 'But this plaintiff/petitioner came to know that the respondent/defendant have indulged into immoral conducts with other men illegally except the plaintiff/petitioner in his absence. This Offence of adultry of the defendant/respondent was seen by the plamtiff/petitioner on two instances and warned her severely. Subsequently, on one occasion, this plaintiff/petitioner came across few immoral and ugly letters written by few persons to the defendant/respondent which were kept secretly under her custody so as to affirm the illegal conducts of the respondent/defendant.'It is seen tha...
Mariya Anthoni Sahaya Johnsi Rani Vs. Joseph Louis Babu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ58
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought for divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of adultery coupled with dessertion. The respondents remained ex parte in the court below. The wife has given evidence in support of her case, which has been accepted by the Additional Family Court at Madras, and a decree for divorce has been granted. Now it has come up before us for confirmation.2. The amicus curiae appointed by this Court for representing the respondents has raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Madras, on the footing that the marriage took place at Nagapattinam, according to the averments in the original petition and it could not therefore have been filed at Madras. There is no substance in this objection. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it is clearly averred that after marriage, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were living together as husband and wife at No. 59, Second Street, Pudupet, Madras-2. Apart from that, it is ...
Christy Selvarathy Vs. Daniel Athisayaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ50
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The wife has sought for declaration that the marriage is null and void on the ground that the husband was impotent. The marriage took place on 27.12.1993. The wife was living with him for some time. According to her, there was no sexual intercourse during that period, she wanted the husband to go to a Doctor, but he refused to consult a Doctor. There was separation between the spouses and attempts at mediation failed. Then there was a representation in the All Women Police Station at Tuticorin. At their instance, there was a re-union between the parties. Thereafter again, they got separated as there was no intercourse.2. The wife has given evidence as P.W. 1 repeating the averments made in the Original Petition. In the evidence she has stated that she did not want to live with her husband even though the Legal Aid Committee advised herself and her husband to live together. Thereafter, according to her, the All Women Police Station advised them to live together and...
P. Siamala Baby Vs. A.D.K.B. Balachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ212
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Wife is the petitioner in the main O.P. She filed the petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent is living in adultery and had also treated her cruelly. The petition so filed by the wife was originally dismissed for default for nonpayment of batta. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 132 of 1990 to set aside the order of dismissal of the petition for non-payment of batta and it was ordered on 2.7.1991. But the respondent/husband did not receive the summons after the restoration of the main O.P. However, the trial court proceeded with the enquiry and granted a decree for divorce as prayed for on 28.10.1991 and forwarded the papers-to this Court for confirmation.2. On coming to know of the ex parte decree by the court below, the husband/respondent herein filed a petition to condone the delay of 196 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree and also another petition to set aside t...
Kalimuthu and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by District Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ517
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 793 of 1994 in A.S. No. 40 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai. The appellants in A.S. No. 40 of 1991 are petitioners herein.2. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 308 of 1990 in the Court of District Munsif for themselves and on behalf of the villagers of Kadampatti village and Periyanavayal village, praying for a decree that they are entitled to the easmentary right of taking water from the northern sluice of Jayankondam Kanmoi through S. Nos.13, 78, 77 to the Kandarampatty Kanmoi through S. No.13 and S. Nos. 130, 134 and 150 to 160 Periyannavayal Kanmoi ayacut and also restraining the respondent from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the water from Jayamkondam Kanmoi through the last sluice on the northern side irrigating the fields by the plaintiff. Though the trial court agreed with the contentions of the plaintiff, did not grant any relief as prayed for by...
P. Ponnammal and Others Vs. Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad161; (1995)IIMLJ532
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in R.No.Ac-1 (3)/ 3976/95 dated 9-3-1995 and quash the same, and further, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for Part I and Part II Examinations of the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in 1995 November Examination along with the regular batch of the 1994-95 First Year M.B.B.S.3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this writ petition are the following :--The petitioners are the students of First Year M.B.B.S. admitted to 1994-95 Session. They contend that had the respondents followed the reservation of 50% for reserved categories at the time of regular admission, as held by the Supreme Court in Mandal case, all the petitioners herein could have been admitted and joined along with the other regular students. The classes for First Year M.B.B.S. started during Augus...
T.N.S.S. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CochIn Port Trust and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad293; (1996)IMLJ445
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in O. A. No. 214 of 1994 and Application No. 4346 of 1994 in C.S. No. 271 of 1994 dated 31-7-1995 vacating the interim injunction granted earlier.2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st respondent/Cochin Port Trust from invoking and encashing the letter of bank guarantee and the 2nd respondent/ bank from making any payment under the bank guarantee dated 11-5-1993 executed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent, and for costs.3. The following are the plaint averments in short. The appellant, who is carrying on the business of acquiring and dismantling vessels on the high seas, purchased a vessel under the name of 'H.S.D. Mattancherry' from M/s. Orient Underwater Engineers Private Limited for dismantling the vessel. An agreement was entered into between the appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »