Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
L. Sethuraman Vs. Karunakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC765
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 23 of 1991, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif). Vellore is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction was sought on the ground that the building requires major repairs, and without dispossessing the tenant, petitioner herein, those repairs cannot be effected.3. Both the Authorities below concurrently found that the building requires repairs and for effecting the repairs the occupation of the building by the tenant will be hindrance, and, therefore, the tenant was directed to handover possession to the landlord temporarily.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the landlord is lacking in good faith. Even in case of repairs, there must be bona fide on the part of the landlord in filing the petition and if that is lacking, an order should not be passed in favour of the eviction petitioner, i.e., landlord.5. A further contention is raised that originally the landlord himself wanted the building to be demolish...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shankar Ram Vs. Mrs. Sukanya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad394; (1997)IIMLJ170
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan. J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1991 in O.P. No. 88 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Madras. This appeal is by the husband. The marriage belween the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27-11-1988 at Guruvayoor. The appellant states that alter their marriage, they set up a matrimonial home in Madras. The marriage between me appellant and the respondent was an arranged one. The appellant is a member of a joint family and he is the eldest son in a family consisting of his aged parents and brothers. The appellant is a highly qualified engineer who started his business in Madras in the year 1975. The appellant was therefore looking for a wife who could adjust and fit well in a large family. The appellant was informed by the father and brother of the respondent that, the respondent having graduated from a well known city college and having widely trave...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. A. Kala Mohan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ295; (1997)IILLJ1179Mad; (1997)IIMLJ66
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The above appeal is directed against the order of the award and decree dated April 26, 1996 and made in O.P. No. 1483 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras). The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the claimant. He filed the above O.P. claming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on January 25, 1993 in which the vehicle belonging to the second respondent, insured with the appellant, was involved. 2. The insurance company filed counter statement and contended that the accident has occurred only due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle by the first respondent and the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the same and in any event the compensation claimed is highly excessive and Imaginary. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bimalchand Vs. Rajammal and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ802; 1997(2)CTC269; (1997)IIMLJ630
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.M.A. No. 869 of 1987 is against the Order dated 15.4.1987 made in O.P. No. 981 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, awarding a sum of Rs. 59,000 against respondents 1 and 2 for the death of one Annamalai in a motor vehicle accident of 19.6.1984.2. C.R.P. No. 1954 of 1986 arises out of an Order dated 21.1.1986 in M.P. No. 1563 of 1984 in O.P. No. 981 of 1984 directing the first respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation Under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 for the death of the same person mentioned above in the above said accident.3. The first respondent is the financier of the vehicle involved in the accident. He has preferred the civil revision petition. The petitioner in the civil revision petition has raised a specific objection denying his liability to pay any amount to the claimants in the accident. According to him he is only a financier and not the owner of the vehicle. But the Tribunal in par...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. I.A. Kala Mohan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC188
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order of the award and decree dated 26.4.1996 and made in O.P. No. 1483 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras). The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the claimant. He filed the above O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 5.1.1993, in which the vehicle belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant, was involved.2. The Insurance Company filed counter-statement and contended the accident has occurred only due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle by the first respondent and the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the same and in any event the compensation claimed is highly excessive and imaginary. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lo...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar Vs. T.N. Somasundaram Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ353
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff who failed before the trial court is the appellant in the above appeal. The second defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit property under the sale deed dated 11.6.1956 which is sought to be cancelled in the suit. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to late V. Arumuga Mudaliar, the father of the second defendant and paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. He died on 2.8.1953 leaving his widow Kuppammal, the second defendant and the grandson, the plaintiff. On his death, the plaintiff and the second defendant became entitled to the suit property and the said Kuppammal became entitled to the right of maintenance. Under a release deed dated 5.9.1953, the second defendant released and extinguished all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property subject to the liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveri Oil and Fertilizers Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Roa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC721
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated March 4, 1997, passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 2941 of 1997 on the ground that it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment challenged in the writ petition. As the matter falls in a narrow compass, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) was directed to take notice. Accordingly, he appears for the respondents.Therefore, the appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of assessment has been passed without affording an opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner. Though the petitioner/appellant sought for supply of several records by way of letters referred to in the very order of assessment, these records were not supplied to the petitioner/appellant. However, the order of assessment came to b...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Koodal Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC390(Mad)
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. In these revision petitions filed by the Revenue under Section 38(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, viz. T.C.(R) No. 12 of 1985 relating to the assessment year 1979-80 and T.C.(R) No. 13 of 1985 relating to the assessment year 1978-79 the only question involved is whether the Tribunal erred in law in having upheld the levy of sales tax on the sale value of gunnies, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (sic). The assessee is a dealer in wheat and wheat products and reported the taxable turnover of Rs. 6,09,895.75 for 1978-79 and Rs. 10,45,413 for 1979-80. But, the assessing authority determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 11,45,664 for the year 1978-79 and at Rs. 15,26,857 for the year 1979-80. While so determining the taxable turnover, the assessing authority found that the assessee has sold wheat products in the course of the inter-State trade, along with the gunny bags and the sale price ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarammal Vs. Karuppannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC580
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The defendant who failed in her attempt to set aside the ex parte decree before the courts below, has filed the above revision petition.2. The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.10.1990. The petitioner herein filed a written statement and contested the suit. The suit was posted for trial on 18.11.1993. Since the defendant did not appear on that date, the defendant was set ex parte and the suit was decreed on the same date. The petitioner/defendant filed petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on 20.12.1993. But it seems that the petition was returned and subsequently on 26.04.1994 it was represented. But, ultimately, it was numbered as IA79 of 1996 only in 1996.3. The petitioner in the said LA. in the affidavit filed in support of that petition has stated that in view of the death of her maternal aunt, she went to her native place on 23.10.1993 and so she could not attend the hearing on 18.11.1993. ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shanmuganathan Vs. the Registrar, Tamil University and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ314
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 25.2.1994 in W.P. No. 2336 of 1992.2. The appellant was temporarily engaged as a watchman under N.M.R. to watch the godown where the materials for the construction of the building at Tribal Research Centre of the Tamil University, Udhagamandalam were stored. He was first engaged for 80 days from 1.5.1986 on a daily wages of Rs. 15. Subsequently, on different dates with different intervals in between, he was similarly engaged for 80 days at a time. After the expiry of every temporary appointment of 80 days, he was relieved and was re-employed for further periods after a gap of one week or so, as the case may be. The appellant's services were finally terminated with effect from 4.8.1989, by the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 1.8.1989 in Na.Ka. No. P2/907/87 on 21.12.1989, the appellant requested the 1st respondent to employ him either in the Tribal Research Centre,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »