Chennai Court February 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.
Janardhana Mishra Alias Janardhana Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ588
Srinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai on 15.12.1995 removing the petitioner herein from the post of Life Trustee of Lala Sri Renga Chatram Charities, Madurai. The proceeding was initiated by the District Judge in a show cause notice dated 16.11.1989 issued on the audit report dated 10.10.1989.2. The administration of the Trust is governed by a scheme decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1915 on the file of the District Court, Madurai dated November 3, 1919. Clause 2 of the Scheme provides that the charities shall be administered by three trustees, of whom two shall be appointed by the Court and the second defendant therein shall continue to be a trustee in her own right for her life and shall be entitled to the customary honours enjoyed by the founder's family. Clause 2(a) provides that the day today routine administration and management shall vest in the life-trustee, for the time being. Clause 5 reads as follows:Upon t...
C. Mayam Perumal Konar and ors. Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ505
Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 in Order S. No. 637 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif, Karur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit Order S. No. 637 of 1977 before the said court for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner doing anything and raising construction and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction on the disputed property within the time fixed by the court.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The vacant site of the suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to one Chinnappa Konar, who is the father of defendants 1 and 2 and one Srinivasa Konar, who is the husband of the plaintiff. One Krishna Konar and his son have partitioned their joint family properties including the suit 'A' schedule property on 30.3.1938 under a registered partition deed. In the partition, the western half o...
D. Sekaran Vs. the Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ585
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. Heard Mr. K. Chandru, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. B. Saraswathy Prasad, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus, to call the records from the first respondent. The Director of School Education, Madras-6, pertaining to his proceedings in reference No.Na.Ka. No. 1815/D2/89, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to forbear from terminating the services of the petitioner as Wood Works Instructor from the third respondent school and for costs.3. Under the impugned communication, the first respondent passed an order dated 29.1.1990 stating that the post of the petitioner cannot be approved on the ground that his S.S.L.C. certificate cannot be taken as a completed S.S.L.C. and that only a person who undergoes study from 6th...
Rasel Muthiriar Vs. the Thiruchirappalli Municipalty Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ578
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal, He filed O.S. No. 1033 of 1978 before the Sub Court, Thiruchirappalli for declaration and permanent injunction. The allegations in the plaint are as follows:The plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. It was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 15.2.1994 under Ex. A-1. The plaintiff obtained a release deed in respect thereof from his brothers under a registered release deed dated 1.6.1961 Ex. A-2. Thus the plaintiff and prior to him, his predecessors-in-title have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 'A' Schedule property for more than the statutory period. 'A' Schedule property is called 'Kubera Bavanam'. It contains a lodging house in the upstairs and a row of 12 shops in the ground floor. 'A' schedule property includes a right acquired by prescriptive exclusive enjoyment over the pathway in the 'B' Schedule property leading to the upstairs of 'A' schedule property....
The State of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. V. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ487
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The short facts leading to the above case are as follows: The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Collector, Thanjavur and Tahsildar (Excise), Sirkali are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent- plaintiff filed the suit Order S. No. 744 of 1973 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali for declaration that the defendants viz., State of Tamil Nadu and Tahsildar (Excise), Sirkali are not entitled to collect a sum of Rs. 23,220 or any other sum as damages and for consequential relief to restrain the defendants from resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.2. The plaint averments are as follows: The retail toddy shops in Sirkali Taluk were put up for auction by the second defendant under Notification 5.6.1972 for the purpose of vending toddy in shops for the year 1972-73. The toddy shop No. 9 was in the village of Melavalla Natham in Sirkali taluk and was put up for sale on 17.7.1972 in the Taluk Office, Sirkali by the second defend...
S. Balakrishnan Vs. Viswanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ541
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant who is aggrieved by concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directing eviction has filed this revision petition. The only contention urged before me by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the application for eviction is not maintainable inasmuch as it relates to two different tenancies filed by two landlords. According to the learned Counsel, the landlords must have filed two separate petitions as they are owners of two different portions of the same building in view of the fact that they had notionally divided the same and let out the portion belonging to each of them separately to the tenant.2. It is not in dispute that the building belonged originally to the mother of the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. by name Seethalakshmi Ammal. After her death, the property devolved on the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and his brother the father of the second petitioner. After the death of the second petitione...
Kaliaperumal and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3658
ORDER1. This revision is against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in C.A. No. 58 of 1992, concurring with the conclusions of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mayiladuthurai in C.C. No. 1223 of 1987 for the offence under S.304, I.P.C. The revision petitioner being the driver and conductor of the bus bearing registration No. TML 5306, belongs to Cholan Transport Corporation, were prosecuted and convicted by the trial Magistrate by Judgment dt. 1-4-1992, for the offence under S. 304A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The lower appellate Court while confirming the conviction by judgment dated 21-6-1993, modified the sentence into fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and ordered release of the revision petitioners as they had already paid the fine amount in the trial Court. 2. The short facts of the prosecution Case are as follows :- The deceased Nallamm...
K. Jayaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1623; 1996(1)CTC470
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the first informant in the police case against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial magistrate. Gingee dated 7-1-93 in C.C. No. 63 of 1991, in respect of the offence under Section 294. I.P.C. 2. According to the prosecution, on 11-6-1990 at 7.00 p.m. while PW-1 Jaya Ramanujam was sitting in the pial of PW-2 Purusothaman along with PW-2, PW-3, Sundaresan and one Madavarajan, the 1st respondent/accused came in a cycle and scolded PW-1 by saying (Vernacular matter is omitted ....... Ed.) The motive attributed to the accused for having uttered these words was that PW-1 Jayaramanujam has supported one Madhavarajan, who was enemically disposed of towards the accused. Immediately. PW-1 gave the complaint Ex. P1 to the police, who in turn registered the case, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent accused under Section 294, I.P.C. 3. The trial Court after elaborate trial, acquitted the accused o...
Kulandaisamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4478
Janarthanam, J.1. The Appellant is the accused in S.C. 93/86 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. On trial, he was found guilty under section 302, IPC convicted thereunder the sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are :- a) The scene village going by the name Thalaivan Kottal is situate within the jurisdictional limits of Puliyankudi Police Station, 8 Kms., on the north east. One Anthonysami, (since deceased) and the accused hailed from the scene village. P.W. 1's husband viz., P.W. 2 and the accused are brothers. Further, P.W. 1 is related to the deceased, as his sister. P.W. 4 is the wife of the deceased P.W. 1 and the accused, it is said, reside at Aranmanai vasal street in the same village. Their houses are situate adjacent to each other. The house of P.W. 1 is situate on the eastern side, while the house of the accused is situate on the western side. The house o...
Sebastian and Another Vs. Inspector of Police, Maduri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2206
ORDER1. Petitioners/Accused 2 and 3 have preferred this Revision against the judgment in S.T.C. No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Judge (For E.C. Act) Madurai, convicting them for the offences under Clause 6(3) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order and Section 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment each. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : PW-1 Muthu Kamatchi was the Deputy Tahsildar. He gave a complaint Ex. P1. PW-2 Arivazhagan was working in the Civil Supplies Corporation at Usilampatti. A-4 -Pandian was the salesman in charge of the Rations Shop at Athikaripatti. On 3-10-1991 various essential commodities were distributed to Melathirumanickam, Athikaripatti and Avalchery Ration Shops through Invoice Ex. P-2. PW-3-Ayyavoor was the concerned Taluk Supply Officer. On 7-10-199...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »