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.
S. Srimathi and 3 ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ440
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners herein filed these writ petitions seeking for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras from proceeding with several complaints filed against them on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked against the Advocates. In fact the very same persons earlier filed W.P. Nos. 21557 and 21567 of 1994, W.P. Nos. 2109, 2110,4233 of 1995 challenging the validity of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, contending that the provision is invalid and cannot be invoked against the advocates. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6.3.96 had dismissed those writ petitions, vide: Srimathi v. Union of India : AIR1996Mad427 finding that Section 3 of the said Act is valid and the advocate profession will also fall within the definition of the service. Being a party to those proceedings and having suffered an order against them, now the petitioners have filed these present writ peti...
Manipal Housing Finance Syndicate Ltd. and Others Vs. Manipal Stock an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas432(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Common plaintiffs 10 in number have filed these three suits, C.S. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 1996, wherein the reliefs sought are also common, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are common in all these suits. In C.S. No. 19 of 1996, the first defendant is Manipal Stock and Share Brokers Limited, Chitrakala, Manipal. In C.S. 20 of 1996, the first defendant is Manipal Home Finance Limited, Chitrakala, Manipal. In C.S. No. 21 of 1996, the first defendant is Manipal Motors (P.) Ltd., Chitrakala Manipal. The registered offices. of all these aforementioned companies are at Chitrakala, Manipal. The plaintiffs are (1) Manipal Housing Finance Syndicate Limited, Manipal; (2) Manipal Investments Limited, Manipal; (3) Manipal industries Limited, Manipal (4) Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd., Manipal; (5) Manipal Sowbhaghya Nidhi Limited, Manipal; (6) Manipal Prakashana (P.) Ltd. R. Manipal; (7) Manipal Printers and Publishers (P.) Ltd., Manipal; (8) Manipal Hotels Limited, Madras; (9) Manipal ...
Chinna Marudachalam and anr. Vs. Chinnaiya Gounder @ Renganna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC584; (1997)IMLJ565
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Revision is directed against the Fair and Decretal Orders dated 12.07.1996 made in I.A. No. 230 of 1996 in O.S. No. 167 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore, allowing an application filed by the respondent herein/defendant under Section 152 C.P.C. praying for to amend the decree dated 29.03.1994 in accordance with the prayer sought for in the suit.2. The Revision is filed by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit against the respondent herein claiming that the suit property is surrounded by a Pallam to the width of 10 feet running north south on the west, S.F. No. 737 on the north and Avanashi road on the south and third parties lands on the east. The Pallam on the western side is running from north-south carrying rain water from the entire fields on the north to south and reached east-west Pallam abutting the Avanashi main road and that the entire land owners of the said area provided the said Pallam and used the same to dr...
Chinna Marudachalam and anr. Vs. Chinnaiya Gounder Alias Renganna Goun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ565
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The revision is directed against the fair and decretal orders dated 12.7.1996 made in I.A. No. 230 of 1996 in O.S. No. 167 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore, allowing an application filed by the respondent herein/defendant under Section 152, C.P.C., praying for to amend the decree dated 29.3.1994 in accordance with the prayer sought for in the suit.2. The revision is filed by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit against the respondent herein claiming that the suit property is surrounded by a Pallam to the width of 10 feet running North-South on the West, S.F. No. 737 on the North and Avanashi road on the South and third parties lands on the east. The Pallam on the western side is running from north-south carrying rain water from the entire fields on the north to south and reached east-west Pallam abutting the Avanashi main road and that the entire land owners of the said area provided the said Pallam and used the same to dra...
Chinnazhagi and anr. Vs. Chellappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC425
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners are the wife and the minor son of the respondent respectively.2. Since the respondent, the husband, neglected the petitioners to maintain, they filed a petition in M.C. No. 17 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Harur claiming maintenance from her husband.On behalf of the petitioners, five witnesses were examined including the first petitioner, the wife. On behalf of the respondent, the husband, ten witnesses were examined including the respondent, the husband. Exs.P.l to P.6were marked on the wife's side. Exs.R.l to R.4 were marked on the husband's side.3. The facts led to the filing of the said petition are this : About 11 years ago, the first petitioner and the respondent got married at Murugan Temple, Thottampatti, Harur Taluk. Both belong to Harijan Community. At the time of the marriage, the respondent was working as a packer in the Amutham Co-operative Society. Out of the wedlock, the second petitioner, minor Vijayakanth was ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. C. Padma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC761
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Vedantham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/insurance company.2. The revision is directed against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge. Tirunelveli. in M.C.O.P.GL.No. 7455 of 1995 (Unnumbered M.C.O.P.) dated 9.7.1996. whereby the Tribunal has entertained the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent/claimant on 2.11.1995, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident that took place on 18.2.1989. The Tribunal entertained the claim petition on 2.11.1995. the accident took place on 18.2.1989 i.e., prior to the coming into force of the amended Motor Vehicles Act (Act 59 of 1988), which came into force with effect from 1.7.1989. The Tribunal over-ruled the objection raised by the insurance company that the claim petition was wholly barred by limitation inasmuch as the claim petition has been filed only on 2.11.1995 in respect of the accident that took place on 18....
T.S.M. Chelliah and anr. Vs. Rev. Dr. Gnanavasakam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC724
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1901 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff, Tiruchirapalli. They have filed the said suit, against the respondents herein seeking for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject matter of the suit and for costs. It is the case of the petitioners that they entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents on 16.7.1987 to purchase the suit property and they have paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as an advance and by way of Part-performance. The petitioners have been put in possession of the suit properties. The petitioners filed an application, I.A.No. 1366 of 1990 seeking for an order of injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, pending the suit. The trial court by order dated 1.3.1991 has allowed the ...
Kushan Ceramics by Its Proprietor, K. Shanmugasundaram Vs. Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ485
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The second appeal-has been filed against the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. He filed the suit O.S. No. 822 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram against the respondents for a declaration that the industrial loan obtained by him from the respondents has been discharged by payment of insurance amounts, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings for recovery of the same. The suit was contested by the respondents who denied repayment and discharge of the loan. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal A.S. No. 124,of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram was also dismissed on 25.10.,1993. Aggrieved against the judgments of the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant t...
C. Murugesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Munic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ398
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the panel of promotion of the Superintending Engineers drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD Board') dated 7.8.1996. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Order of the TWAD Board dated 7.8.1996 in B.P. No. 226 issued pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 172 dated 6.8.1996 of the Government ofTamil Nadu and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the pretitioner in the panel of promotion of Superintending Engineers above the names of respondents 3 to 8.2. The writ petitioner joined the service of TWAD Board as Junior Engineer on 5.6.1961, and after several promotions, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 8.10.1990. The next avenue of promotion of the Superintending Engineer is that of Chief Engineer. A panel for the promotion of Superintending Engineers to the cadre of Chief Engineer was earlier made in the year 1993, and the petit...
The Transport Commissioner Vs. JasmIn Roadways
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ540
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These two writ appeals are preferred by the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, against the common order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition Nos. 2552 of 1995 and 561 of 1996.2. In Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1995, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.1.1995 passed by the Transport Commissioner in Proceedings R.No. E2/48055/94 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,04,400 being the difference of the tax which had become payable, according to the Transport Commissioner, in view of the fact that after the permit was transferred to the petitioner, he did not immediately obtain the counter-signature and as such, there had been delay in applying for continuance of counter-signature for the period from 13.4.1993 to 12.7.1994. In the other writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Transport Commissioner to grant counter-signature to the permit.3. The lear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »