Chennai Court December 1996 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.
G. Kumarasamy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC437
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16042 of 1996 is the appellant herein. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid writ petition for a writ of mandamus to forbear the first respondent herein from issuing a warrant of appointment, appointing the fourth respondent herein as a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and pass such other further orders as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on going through the records, the learned Single Judge of this Court, thought fit to dismiss the writ petition even at the admission stage. It is against that order the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein.2. The main contention of Mr. Vedantham Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, was that having regard to the materials placed on record, the fourth respondent could not have been considered fit for appointment as a Judge of this Court. According to the ...
Rajaraman Vs. Kaliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC401
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 598 of 1982, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif s Court, Pondicherry, is the appellant.2. Plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister.3. Suit filed by plaintiff was to recover possession of the property after demolition of the superstructure.4. The material averments in the plaint can be stated thus:-The property was purchased by plaintiff on 15.11.1968, and thereafter, he has put up a construction on the vacant site in the year 1973 by spending a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. It is said that the defendant occupied the house constructed in the above plot on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, and she paid rent till February, 1981. Plaintiff filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1981, against the defendant, for eviction, on the ground of wilful default, and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the tenancy was not proved. In fact, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is in occupation of the property as a tenant, an...
Mahaveer Electric Corporation Vs. D. Ashok Kumar and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC107
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. These revisions arise out of a common order passed in M.P.Nos.683 of 1993 and 738 of 1993 in E.P.No. 368 of 1993 in R.CO.P.No. 40 of 1993 dated 6.12.1993.2. M.P.No. 683 of 1993 is for setting aside the exparte order dated 6.9.1993 in E.P.No. 368 of 1993 and M.P.No. 738 of 1993 is for a direction to the bailiff to effect redelivery of the demised property 'as is where condition' to the petitioner. Learned XIII Judge, Small Cause Court by his order dated 6.12.1993 rejected the M.P.No. 738 of 1983 and consequently on the same date rejected M.P.No. 368 of 1993 also. The above two petitions were filed by aggrieved tenant.3. The short facts for understanding the scope of the revisions are as follows:R.CO.P.No. 40 of 1993 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner from a godown bearing door No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, Madras-79. The said godown forms part of a big building. Notices were sent to the said addresses. As the petitioner herein did not appe...
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Represented by the Registrar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ327
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.9.1996 passed by a learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 2252 of 1995.2. The respondent herein joined the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as District Munsif, and at present he is a District Judge, Grade I. When he was serving as a District and Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram, at Madurai he was served with a show cause notice on 18.2.1991 asking him why disciplinary action should not be taken against him based on certain allegations. He submitted his explanation to the same on 25.3.1991. The explanation so submitted was found not satisfactory. 18 charges were framed against him. Two Honourable Judges appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice conducted enquiry and submitted their findings on 16.4.1992 on the charges. Thereafter the respondent received a communication Roc.77/90/Con.B2 dated Nil fromHhe appellant stating that the Administrative Committee No. 1 had considered the findings given by the ho...
In Re: J. Sudarshan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ287
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The writ petitions W.P. Nos. 4538 to 4542 of 1996 filed by Mrs. S. Srimathi, Mr. G. Jambunathan, Mrs. Srimathi, Mr. B.K. Moorthy and Mr. S.K. Rajagopalan respectively came up for admission on 12.4.1996. The counsel on record did not appear on that date. But, however, on his behalf, adjournment was sought for. At request, the matters were adjourned to 15.4.1996, on which date a request for adjournment was made stating that the petitioners had engaged some other counsel, viz., Dr. Krishnamurthy. Hence once again the case was adjourned to 16.4.96. On 16.4.1996 there was no representation either on behalf of the counsel on record or on behalf of the other counsel who is said to have been engaged by the petitioners. Hence the matters were posted in default list on 17.4.1996.2. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras to proceed with the cases filed against the petitioners by some of t...
S. Jaganathan Rao and Four ors. Vs. M.G. Vital Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ461
Jagadeesan, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 7922 of 1982 on the file of the 18th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, are the appellants herein. The respondent herein filed the suit far declaration of his title to the Suit property, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the property and the first defendant is the tenant under the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 are also in possession of the property as tenants. Since the first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff, the suit has been filed. The first defendant filed written statement claiming title to the suit property and the defendants 2 to 5 are the tenants under him. Defendants 2 to 5 also filed written statement contending that the first defendant is the owner of the property and they are the tenants under the first defendant. Further, they pleaded that they are entitled for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act....
M.N.K.R. Nagappa and 4 ors. Vs. L. Nagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC45; (1997)IMLJ481
ORDERJagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioners/the decree holders in O.S.No. 93 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai. The petitioners filed the said suit seeking for eviction of the respondent and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 10.4.80. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 16.2.87. As against this, the respondent preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Devakkottai and the same ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 21.3.90. Thereafter the petitioners filed E.P.No. 104 of 1990 seeking for recovery of possession. That was dismissed on 24.10.90. Thereafter the present execution petition has been filed.2. The respondent herein contested the E.P. on the ground that since the earlier E.P. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the value of the superstructure, which the respondent is entitled to by way of compensation, within the stipulated period of t...
M.N.K.R. Nagappa and ors. Vs. Nagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ481
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners/the decree-holders in O.S. No. 95 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai. The petitioners filed the said suit seeking for eviction of the respondent and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 10.4.1980. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex pane decree which was dismissed on 16.2.1987. As against this, the respondent preferred an appeal in CM.A. No. l 1 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Devakdttai and the same was ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 21.3.1990. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.P. No. 104 of 1990 seeking for recovery of possession. That was dismissed on 24.10.1980. Thereafter, the present execution petition has been filed.2. The respondent herein contended the E.P. on the ground that since the earlier E.P. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the value of the superstructure, which the respondent is entitled to by way of compensation, within the stipul...
Farisha Beevi and anr. Vs. Shamsud Buhari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ490
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These two original side appeals arise out of the same order dated 3.10.1996 in O.A. No. 420 of 1996 in C.S. No. 49 of 1995 on the file of this Court. O.S.A. No. 258 of 1996 is by defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit and O.S.A. No. 290 of 1996 is by the plaintiff in the said suit. The said suit is for partition of the suit properties. The plaintiff is the brother and defendants 1 and 2 are his sisters, all the three being the children of one R.M. Basha, who died on 27.10.1993 and his wife Rahima, who died on 18.6.1994. The applicant in the abovesaid O.A. No. 420 of 1996, who is the 1st respondent in O.S.A. No. 258 of 1996 and 3rd respondent in O.S.A. No. 290 of 1996, is the first wife of the plaintiff and the said O.A. prayed for an order of appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit properties and the said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 3.10.1996, whose material portions run as follows:.I consider it just and proper to appoint a receiver to...
Kanniappa Nadar Vs. Jayapandi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1352; AIR1997Mad236; 1997(1)CTC440
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan,J.1. All the letters patent appeals are directed against the common judgment of V. Ratnam, J., as he then was, in C.M.A. Nos. 136 to 144 of 1989 dated 29-10-1993. C.R.P. No. 2655 of 1990 is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in M.A.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1988. All the appeals and the revision have been preferred by the owner of the lorry MDT 8827 involved in the accident. The I st respondent in all the matters is the claimant while the 2nd respondent is the insurance company.2. On 27-3-1985 when some of the claimants and others were travelling in the lorry MDT 8827 with paddy bags between Tirunelveli and Kariyapatti, at about 5-30 a.m., near the garden of one Thanga Pandian on the Virudhunagar Kallakurichi Road, an accident took place in which some persons lost their lives and others sustained injuries. The injured and the legal representatives ofthe deceased passengers who travelled in the lorr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »