Chennai Court November 1997 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.
The Management of Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC753
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 126746 W 12 of 96 dated 12.8.1997 and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 11867/47/96 dated 14.8.1997, and quash the same, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. This writ petition has been filed by the Management of Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, and the affidavit has been sworn to by Secretary of the School Committee.3. It is said that the Papanasam Labour Welfare Association came into existence during 1942 for the Welfare of the employees of the Coats Viyalla India Limited. The Welfare Association during 1952 started a Primary School for the welfare of the children of the employees of Coats Viyella India Ltd. which became a Middle School during 1954, and it later...
Muthukrishnan Vs. Ramaian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC161
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff filed suit for possession..2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the plaintiff's paternal uncle. He went abroad and returned to India in 1996. He got married in 1970. He requested the plaintiff to permit him to occupy the house bearing door No. 93, Masthanapalli Street, Karaikal belonging to him. Sri Kailasanathaswamy Sri Nityakalyanaperumal Vagayara Devasthanam, Karaikal is the owner of the site. In 1970, the plaintiff was unmarried. Hence he permitted the defendant to live in the suit house. The plaintiff lived with his brother in Door No. 94, Masthan Palli Street, Karaikkal. The defendant agreed to vacate the house whenever requested. In 1979, the plaintiff got married and hence he wanted to vacate the house. As the defendant refused he sent a notice on 31.10.1981. But the defendant sent a reply with untenable contentions. Hence the suit for possession and mesne profits.3. ...
Karuppusamy Vs. Muniappa Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC522
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal.2. The suit is for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the land originally belonged to one Kariveeran Chettiyar. He had two daughters by name Veerammal and Kalyani and a son by name Veerappa Chettiar. In an oral partition the suit property was allotted to the daughters. On 16.6.1944 they sold the suit property to their brother Veerappa Chettiar. The Patta Number of the property is No. 10 and Survey Number is 61, measuring 65 and 1/2 cents. Again on 29.10.46 Veerappa Chettiar sold the property to his sisters Veerammal and Kalyani. On 3.55.1948 they in turn sold the property to plaintiff. On 15.7.48 the plaintiff has redeemed the property.3. As per Act 30 of 1963 the entire village which has an inam was taken over by Government. The new Survey Number was given as 63/8 for 65 cents. The New Patta Number is 140 and it has been given to the plaintiff. Further under the up-dating scheme ...
G. Thiyagarajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC705
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Heard.2. Mr. G. Thiyagarajan, the proprietor of Sri Thiyagaraja Enterprises, the petitioner herein, is seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police in respect of the case registered against him for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code.3. Mr. T.S. Ramarathinam, counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a qualified Civil Engineer and he established a Civil engineering Contractor's concern under the name and style of Sri Thiyagaraja Enterprises in the Year 1986 and that in 1993, when tenders were called for for launching Periyar-Vaigai Link Canal Work, he applied for the same and he was declared successful and after completing his work in April, 1995, he received part payments and since other payments were not made, he filed a suit for the recovery of the said sum and that therefore, now at the instance of the Government, a false case has been registered a...
K. Uma Mahesh Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Mad283; 1998(1)CTC16; (1998)IMLJ381
ORDER1. In Writ Petition No. 5215 of 1996 the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's body for the purpose of anatomical dissection, treatment, medical relief, including transplant of vital organ to the deserving donees.2. In Writ Petition No. 5216 of 1996 the writ petitioner seeks to issue a writ of declaration declaring the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act as ultra vires.3. The facts leading to the filing of both the writ petitions are briefly stated here under:According to the petitioner he is a rationalist and does not believe in any rituals or ceremonies. His father who has the same frame of mind wanted todonate his body after his death to the Institute of Anatomy for the purpose of anatomical dissections. Since, his father's request was not acceded to by the respondents he filed Writ Petition No. 1843 of 1987 and this Court directed the respondents to dissect the body when the same is produced to the mortuary. Likewise one Srinivas...
M.K. Sankaran Vs. S. Birlasekaran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC56; (1998)IIIMLJ45
ORDER1. The tenant who suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has filed the above revision.2. The landlords/petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.381 of 1981 under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(l)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960. According to them, the rent was at Rs.220 per month and the tenant respondent paid an advance of Rs.1,000. The landlords got the property in question by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 12.11.1980 entered into between the landlords and their brothers. According to them, the tenant has paid rent irregularly till the end of September, 1980 and failed to pay the subsequent months rent despite the repeated demands made by the landlords through their agents, and the arrears of rent was Rs.1,760 for the period from October, 1980 to the end of May, 1981. On that basis they came forward with the plea that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. They also wanted the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant conteste...
K. Pichai Mohideen Vs. M.K.M. Abdul Hakkim and 11 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC461
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. These three second appeals arise out of a common judgment in A.S. No. 258 of 1993 and l3 and 14 of 1994 dated 27.3.1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 30.9.1994 in O.S.Nos. 1967 of 1983, 1778 of 1982 and 1827 of 1983 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.2. In all the three suits, the relief claimed relates to pathway. In O.S.No. 1967 of 1983, the plaintiff claims the pathway running east to west from the Race Course Road, Tiruchirappalli having a width of 30' and length of 90' and 100' North to south with the same width of 30' in Survey Nos. 29/1 and 29/3. The relief in the suit is for injunction restraining the common defendant in all the three suits from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the pathway by the plaintiff in any manner. In O.S.No. 1778 of 1992 and O.S.No. 182 of 1983 the relief claimed is for declaration and injunction r...
Arukkaniammal Vs. M. Subramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ563
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in E.A. No. 490 of 1985 in E.P. No. 49 of 1985 in O.S. No. 73 of 1983 in the file of subordinate Judge, Erode, The said E.A. No. 490 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner for raising attachment of his property made in E.P. No. 49 of 1985 in O.S. No. 73 of 1983. 2. The petitioner claimant's case is that Messrs K. Somasundaram and K. Chidambaram who had 1/3 undivided share each in the petition mentioned property released their interest by a registered deed dated 23.7.1979 in favour of the petitioner after receiving valuable consideration. They ceased to have any interest in the petition mentioned property from and after 23.7.1979. the petitioner alone is the absolute owner of the entire petition property. In respect of three more release deeds, dispute arose between the petitioner and the second respondent. With a view to cause loss to the petitioner the second respondent created some promissory notes in the name of th...
R. Ganga Vs. S. Royal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ112
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appellant herein filed this appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, dated 31.3.1997 in O.P.No.23 of 1995, wherein the appellant/petitioner sought permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The lower court has dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the same the present appeal. 2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the petitioner has averred in the plaint that she has no means to pay the court fees and except the 'A' Schedule properties mentioned in the plaint, the appellant do not possess any other property. In her evidence in the cross-examination she has stated that her family members gave forty sovereigns of jewels, out of which seven sovereigns of jewels are with the respondent and in the plaint a prayer for recovery of the same is sought for. If this is to be taken into consideration, deducting the 7 sovereigns which is with the respondent herein, the remaining 33 sovereigns of jewels are available wi...
M.C. Kuppuswamy and 2 Others Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC601; (1998)IIMLJ113
ORDER1. This writ of certiorarified mandamus filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the order of the first respondent, the licensing authority in R.C.No.319/085685/E2(l)/96 dated 6.8.1996 renewing the licence in favour of the second respondent to run the cinema theatre, by name, Kapali Talkies. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner are the owners of the above mentioned cinema theatre, by name Kapali talkies and the second respondent was given a composite lease of the land, buildings with all the fittings furnitures fixtures, machineries and the entire cinematographic equipments like projectors, screen, complete sound system, record player and all other things required for running the cinema theatre. The original lease was in favour of the second respondent in the year 1984 and periodically it was renewed, and finally, the lease was renewed for 1.4.1996 to 30.9.1996. Therefore, the second respondent had the right to run the abovesaid cinema theatre up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »