Chennai Court January 1997 Judgments
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. J.P. Sahay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ177
Govardhan, J.1. Second respondent is the appellant.2. Petitions in his petition contends as follows: the petitioner was crossing the village road from east to west on 17.7.1981. The van bearing registration No. TMZ-1733 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent proceeding from north to south came at a high speed and hit at the petitioner causing grievous injuries to him. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. The petitioner therefore makes a claim for a sum of Rs. 40,000. The petition was sub-sequently amended and the compensation claimed was Rs. one lakh in the amended petition.3. The second respondent in their counter contends as follows: On 17.. 7.1981 at about 6:30 p. m. when the vehicle TNZ-1733 was nearing the 'Queens Hotel' on Village Road, a man who was fully drunk sud-denly started running from east to west. The driver on seeing the man, applied the brake and stopped the car. But, the man hit at the van a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Samikkanu Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1068; AIR1997Mad229; 1997(1)CTC275
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows :--'to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondent-Corporation to pay adequate and fair compensation for the loss of the life of the petitioner's son.' 2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder :--The second respondent viz., Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited is in the mining operation with giant cscavator at Second Mines Site. A brick-wall was discovered inside the mine and it was thought that it could be an ancient cave. After hearing the news, the public in the surrounding area were anxious to see the ancient cave. It is averred that there is no fencing or notification cautioning the people on the imminent danger for public. The people, unmindful of the extreme danger, were visiting the structure in large number. The petitioner's son S. Muthu-kumaran, aged about 13 years who was studying in VIII Standard at Neyveli Lignite Corporati...
Tag this Judgment!Sagayadurai and Others Vs. J.D. Electronics
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)753; [1999]95CompCas337(Mad); 1997(2)CTC478
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in all these revisions is whether the manager of a partnership firm could file a complaint in the absence of power of attorney or any authorisation 2. The trial court while considering this point has held that the manager is competent to file the complaint. 3. Ms. T. R. Ramadevi, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the manager can represent a company but, in the instant case, since the manager represents the partnership firm, he cannot be permitted to appear on behalf of the partnership firm in the absence of authorisation. 4. I am afraid this argument cannot hold good in view of the following Explanation (a) to section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which defines company for the purpose of this Act and the said Explanation runs as under : 'Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, - (a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals.' 5. ...
Tag this Judgment!State by Inspector of Factory, Ist Circle, Madurai Vs. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3090
1. These appeals preferred by the State on behalf of the Inspector of Factories, are directed against the judgment in C.C. No. 337 of 1986 and C.C. No. 338 of 1986 acquitting the respondent in respect of charges under Section 90(2) of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5-6-1985 at 10-00 a.m. P.W. 1, Factory Inspector went and inspected the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited and found that there were defects by not constituting a Committee for canteen, not providing furniture facilities to the Rest Shed and creche facilities to the children of the employees, non- provision of Ambulance Van, non-maintainance of Ambulance Room and non-maintennace of Canteen building. Since these are all offences attracting the relevant Ss. 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Factories Act, he is liable to be convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act. A show- cause notice was sent to the party asking the respondent to rectify the defects within a particular period. A reply was sen...
Tag this Judgment!Yadhavan and anr. Vs. Md. DayanudIn and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC407; (1997)IIMLJ351
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed in both the courts below, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. The suit by the respondents plaintiffs is for an injunction against possession and interference in respect of the vacant portion of the suit property, of an extent of 600 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 1767 sq. ft. of the entire suit property. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession under Ex. A.1 sale deed dated 18.10.1989 from the 3rd defendant.2. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the courts below have not considered the title secured by the defendants to the abovesaid 600 sq. ft. by adverse possession as found in an earlier proceeding, whose judgment dated 5.12.1984 is marked as Ex. B4.3. But, first of all it must be noted that the plaintiffs were not parties to the said earlier proceeding. That apart, the lower appellate court specifically finds that in Ex. B4 the abovesaid 600 sq. ft. vacant site has not been referred to and the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Raj Vs. Rajasekar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC92; (1997)IMLJ645
ORDERK.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.1996, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in C.M.P.No. 8624 of 1994 in A.A.O.No. 791 of 1996.2. The appellant herein is the father of the minor girl Rathna Kumar. The appellant married one Jayalakshmi according to Hindu rites on 26.8.1987 at Tuticorin. After the marriage the said Jayalakshmi was taken to Madras, where the appellant herein is residing with his parents and brother. Out of the wedlock, the minor girl Rathna Kumari was born on 20.6.1968. Jayalakshmi died on 2.7.1994. After the death of Jayalakshmi the appellant herein and his parents entrusted the custody of the minor child to the respondents therein. The appellant herein also said to have executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 7.7.1994 in favour of the respondents herein to look after the minor child. A settlement deed was also executed by the appellant herein settling certain properties in favour of the mi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishma Raj Vs. Rajasekar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC637
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.1996, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.M.P. No. 8624 of 1994 in AAO No. 791 of 1996.2. The appellant herein is the father of the minor girl Rathana Kumari. The appellant married one Jayalakshmi according to Hindu rites on 26.8.1987 at Tuticorin. After the marriage the said Jayalakshmi was taken to Madras, where the appellant herein is residing with his parents and brother. Out of the wedlock, the minor girl Rathana Kumari was born on 20.6.1994. After the death of Jayalakshmi the appellant herein and his parents entrusted the custody of the minor child to the respondents herein. The appellant herein is also said to have executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 7.7.1994 in favour of the respondents herein to look after the minor child. A settlement deed was also executed by the appellant herein settling certain properties in favour of the minor child. However, on 5.9.1994, the...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Rajagopalan Vs. Usha Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC558; (1998)IMLJ181
Sathasivam, J.1. The husband who obtained a decree for divorce in M.O.P. No. 167 of 1983 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras under Section 13(1)(iii) Hindu Marriage Act and lost before the lower. Appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 153 of 1987 on the file of (he XI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court,2. The case of the appellant as seen from the petition filed by him before the Trial Court is briefly stated hereunder;The petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) were married on 14.5,1967 at Sirkazhi. The respondent was very aggressive and at times violent, both with the petitioner and the member of his family, and the attitude of the respondent increased day-by-day causing embarrassment to the petitioner and the members of his family. The petitioner came to know that the respondent had attack of epilepsy and was not of sane mind even at the time of her marriage. The petitioner lived with the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Niramathi Naicker and anr. Vs. Kambalam Naicker Residents of Gothai Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ505
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 69 of 1981, on the J file of District Munsif's Court, Srivilliputtur, are the appellants.2. Plaint schedule property is two cents of land with a well in Survey No. 405/C6, Rajapalayam Taluk. The suit property is a portion of 21 cents of land which, according to plaintiffs, belonged to their joint family. Plaintiffs and their elder brother, third defendant in the suit, are admittedly members of a Hindu joint family. Their father died about 22 years back prior to the institution of the suit. On the death of their father, mother Sakkammal was managing the property, and when third defendant attained majority, he became the manager. It is said that the joint family possessed only 6 acres of dry land, and some of them are rain-fed. Plaintiffs are depending only on the properties for their livelihood. It is said that on 25.3.1980, the Kambala Naicker residents of the village (2nd defendant) prevailed upon the third defendant with a false promise, an...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Padmini Jayasundar Vs. N.S. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ496
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Decree-holder in R.C.O.P. No. 344 of 1986, on the file of District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner.2. The schedule building which is non-residential is in the possession of the respondent herein and the same was let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. At the time when the tenancy commenced, a sum of Rs. 3,000 was paid as advance. In the eviction petition, it was alleged by the decree-holder, petitioner herein that she is running a business at Madras by name Anglo French Pest Control, and that she wanted to shift her business to Coimbatore in her own premises. It is said that she was requesting the respondent herein to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession. It was further alleged in the eviction petition that she is not running the business in her own premises, and she is not in occupation of any building of her own either at Coimbatore or at Madras. She therefore, requested the respondent to vacate the premises for her own occu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »