Chennai Court December 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.
Arulmighu Thandumariamman Thirukkoil Vs. Erammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ728
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. Both the counsel represented that the question involved in the second appeal is whether there is proper notice of termination of lease. As that is the only question that arises for consideration, the counsel on both sides requested the appeal itself may be disposed finally. Hence the appeal is taken up for final disposal.2. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 199 of 1992 seeking an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from conducting any public auction regarding suit premises or otherwise from disturbing her possession of the suit premises till she is evicted under the procedure established by law. It is her case that originally her father took the property on lease as early as 20.3.1969 on an annual rent of Rs. 500 from one S.L. Kittain. After taking the land on lease, her father constructed a rice mill by spending more than Rs. 30,000. After the death of her father, she took the property on lease from the owner for 10 years from 16.4.1975...
J. Henry Suresh David Vs. Usha Martilda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ613
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. The appellant herein is the respondent and respondent herein is the petitioner before the lower Court in I.A.No. 22 of 1988 in 1.D.D.P.No. 100 of 1987.2. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner before the lower court filed a petition in I.A.No. 22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No. 100 of 1987 under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act claiming a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month towards interim alimony pendente life from the appellant/respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 19.6.1985 at the C.S.I. Home Church, Nagercoil. On 1.8.1986 the respondent took her from Nagercoil to Trivandrum and left her in her parents house. Thereafter he did not return to her nor did he take her. Presently the respondent has filed the application seeking divorce alleging that the petitioner is a lunatic or a person having an unsound mind. It is not true to say so. She has no income or source of income to maintain herself. The respondent ...
A. Varghese and Another Vs. Chellappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1328
ORDER1. The first petitioner Verghese, retired Sub-Inspector of Police and the second petitioner Muthukrishnan, Inspector of Police are accused 9 and 10 respectively in C.C. No. 1711 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Nagercoil. They are being prosecuted along with eight others in a private complaint instituted by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii), 167, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case was taken on file as against the petitioners A9 and A10 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 167, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal code and for the others in respect of other offences. The petitioner after entering appearance before the lower Court, on receipt of summons and the copy of the complaint, have approached this Court to quash the proceedings as against them. 3. The brief facts are summarised as follows : The respondent herein/complainant Chellappan and the accused 1 to 8 are the permanent resi...
Sicom Ltd. Vs. Deve Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)4CompLJ269(Mad)
Khadiri, J. 1. This application is filed for giving effect to the memorandum of understanding entered between the applicant-company and Pragosa Ventures (P.) Ltd.2. The applicant-Deve Sugars Ltd. is a public limited company. The respondent-Sicom Ltd. is also a public limited company. According to the respondent, they have advanced corporate loan of Rs. 3,00,00,000 to Rajadhiraj Industries Ltd., a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The applicant-Deve Sugars Ltd. stood as guarantor for the due payment of the debt. The principal debtor and the guarantor did not make payment and, therefore, Sicom Ltd. filed Company Petition No. 170 of 1995 for winding up of the applicant-company. Sicom Ltd., the respondent herein, also filed an application CA No. 2255 of 1997 to restrain the applicant herein by an ad interim injunction from transacting special business Nos. 8 and 11 or any other business which may tantamount to creation of charge on t...
P. Gopirathnam and Four Others Vs. Ferrodous Estate (Pvt) Ltd., Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC182
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the leaned senior counsel for the parties.2. The defendants in the suit O.S. No.130 of 1981 have filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.3.1991 made in the said suit. In this order, we shall refer to the parties by the ranks as assigned in the suit itself for convenience.3. The plaintiff filed the said suit O.S. No.130 of 1981 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.6.1980. It is not necessary for us to refer to the averments made in the plaint in detail. The defendants in the written statement have raised various defences including the one that the plaintiff is not entitled to purchase more than 500 sq.metres under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and hence the agreement was void as violating the provisions of the Statute.4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned single Judge raised the following issues:- (1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 12.6.1980 i...
R. Dhasaiyan and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC378; (1998)IMLJ399
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioners seek the assistance of this Court for issuance of the writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to G.O. No.(l-D) 685, Home Dept., (Cinema-2) dated 30.9.1997 issued by the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.(d) Cinema Appeal No. 57 of 1996, dated 5-12-1996, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in R.Dis. No. 28715 of 1995, dated 13-4-1996, and the quash the same.2. The petitioners, who are man and wife have sought interference of this Court, prohibiting the 4th respondent from exhibiting cinema films in his semi-permanent theatre by name 'Kothandaram Talkies' The relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition could be summarised as follows:-3. An area of 3.22 acres of land in S.No.1121/2 in Vikramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, originally belonged to one Deva Asirvadam. He leased an extent of 1.18 acres to one Govindaswamy Naidu, the father of the 4th respondent fo...
U. Mohideen Pitchai Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ456
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, in R. No. 22196/B4/97, dated 24.7.1997 and to quash the same and also to direct the respondent herein to accept the surrender of the permit of the petitioner made on 22.5.1997.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that he is the owner of the goods vehicle TN-72/z 680. He applied before the Regional Trans-port Officer, Tirunelveli, for the grant of a National permit in respect of this vehicle to operate of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Pondicherry and Maharashtra States. The application was filed in the year 1994, and the permit was issued by the R.T.O., Tirunelveli, for a period of five years valid upto 5.1.1999. The issue of the national permit is governed by the Central Motor Vehicles Rules...
N. Manoharan Vs. the Director of Town and Country Planning and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ413
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Narration of facts of writ petition will cover the circumstances under which the revision has been fled. Therefore, a separate narration of the facts in the C.R.P. is not necessary.2. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records or the 1st respondent in Na. Ka. No. 2 of 1994. L.A. 3, dated 10.7.1995 ant. quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.3. Writ petitioner, along with his brother N. Chandrasekaran (2nd respondent in C.R.P.), purchased garden land of an extent of 7 acres 36 cents in Survey No. 385/1, in Chitragupthanpalayam Village, Dharapuram, along with another property of an extent of 3 acres 42 cents in Survey No. 388/C, for Rs. 31,000 from its previous owners. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition purchased 2 acres 66 cents in Survey No. 385/1 and another 2 acres 81 cents in Survey No. 385/2 along with well and motor as per sale deed 31.5.1978...
Malaravan and anr. Vs. K. Reghupathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ546
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Opposite parties 2 and 3 in O.P. No. 40 of 1997, on the file of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, are the revision petitioners. First respondent herein filed a complaint for recovery of deposit amount of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 24% from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter at 18% from the date of maturity till the date of settlement, and for compensation of not less than Rs. 5,000 for mental agony, and for other reliefs. 2. The claim of the first respondent was seriously dis-puted by the petitioners herein, and, according to them, the transaction between them is that of debtor and creditor. It is their case that the complainant has advanced a personal loan of Rs. l lakh to the first petitioner by cheque and he has also taken certain blank papers, and the same were utilised for the purpose of filing the complaint. They also disputed the jurisdiction of the Consumer Redressal Forum on the ground that there is a civil dis...
R. Dhasaiyan and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ399
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioners seek the assistance of this Court for issuance of the writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to G.O. No. (l-D)685, Home Dept., (Cinema-2) dated 30.9.1997 issued by the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in D. Dis. (D) Cinema Appeal No. 57 of 1996, dated 5.12.1996, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in R. Dis. No. 28715 of 1995, dated 13.4.1996, and to quash the same.2. The petitioners, who are man and wife have sought interference of this Court, prohibiting the 4th respondent from exhibiting cinema films in his semi permanent theatre by name 'Kothandaram Talkies'. The relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition could be summarised as follows:3. An area of 3.22 acres of land in S. No. 1121/2 in Vikramasingapuram village, Ambasamudram Taluk, originally belonged to one Deva Asirvedam. He leased an extent of 1.18 acres to one Govindasamy Naidu, the father of the 4th respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »