Chennai Court April 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.
N. Rajammal (Died) and Another Vs. P. Maragathammal and 28 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC314; (1998)IMLJ184
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 57 of 1990, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the first appellant.2. Suit filed by her was one for partition claiming one- fifth share in the plaint schedule items and also to direct the defendants to put her in possession of the share so allotted. Consequent relief as to payment of profits was also sought for. She also prayed for costs of suit.3. Material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:-Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are sisters, being daughters of late Appasami Naidu. All the schedule items belong to Appasami Naidu either ancestral or by purchase. He had no male issues. With a view to escape from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and also to avoid surrendering surplus lands to the Government, Appasami Naidu brought about a partition deed dated 30.9.1970 between himself, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Under this partition, Appasami Naidu purported to divide all his p...
Madras Labour Union and Another Vs. Management of Binny Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CompLJ305(Mad)
Sathasivam, J.1. Against the order of the second respondent dated January 12, 1996, holding that the first respondent company has ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking, the petitioners, Madras Labour Union and B and C Mills Staff Union, have filed the present writ petition to quash the said order and also for further direction directing the second respondent to exercise due powers of supervision and control over the first respondent for the proper implementation of the rehabilitation scheme dated June 13, 1994. 2. By order dated January 30, 1997, this court has admitted the above writ petition and ordered notice to the respondents. The petitioners have also filed W.M.Ps. Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1997 for appropriate direction and stay of the impugned order of the second respondent respectively. On the date of admission, this court has ordered notice in the said W.M.Ps. 3. When the above applications came up for further hearing after service of notice to the first respondent, even tho...
L. Srinivasan Chettiar Vs. L. Santhanam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC228; (1997)IIMLJ653
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 162 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, is the revision petitioner.2. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 27.3.1986, to partition plaint A and B Schedule properties. As per the preliminary decree, plaintiff was given half share in Items 1 to 14, 18 and 19 in 'A' Schedule, and one half share in 'B' Schedule Item 55 and an iron safe. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, an application was filed for the passing of a final decree. On that, a Commissioner was deputed to measure the properties and to recommend the allotment. The Commissioner filed his report on 21.11.1994. Various objections were raised by both parties.3. By the impugned order, the lower Court found that the report filed by the Commissioner requires reconsideration, and appointed a new Advocate-Commissioner. Certain directions were also given by the impugned Order. The said order is under challenge in this revision.4. I do not think that the revisi...
S. Kattappan and Anr. Vs. Civil Advocates Clerks' Association, rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC41; (1998)IMLJ260
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1386 of 1993 is by the tenant and C.R.P. No. 3181 of 1993 is by the landlord. They arise from the same proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Dindigul.2. Parties herein will be referred to according to their array in the rent control proceedings.3. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent and the building also requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.4. Both the grounds were opposed by the tenant.5. Rent Controller recorded evidence, both oral and documentary, and after considering them in detail he ordered eviction.6. The matter was taken on Appeal by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 31 of 1990 on the file of Principal Sub ordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority) Dindigul. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction in so far as the finding that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction is concer...
The Divisional Manager, Advances Section - Ii, Canara Bank and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC646
ORDERSubramani, J.1. Material facts which arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition may be summarised as follows:-Petitioners herein are Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of a Nationalised Bank, namely, Canara Bank. 1st respondent availed a financial facility from the said Bank and the same was guaranteed by second respondent. It is seen that there was correspondence between the petitioners and respondents regarding rate of interest. It is the case of the respondents that the Bank agreed for reduction in rate of interest and that was assured by the then Branch Manager. The said allegation was disputed by the petitioners. At any rate, the Bank itself offered some concession, i.e., a reduction of Rs. 7,000 in interest provided the entire balance was paid in a lump within a particular time. When the matter was not settled petitioner field O.S.No. 32 of 1992, on the file of Additional District Judge's Court. Pondicherry, for recovery of money by sale of the mortgaged prop...
Agalaya Bhai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissioner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC484
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the G.O. Ms. No. 956 Housing Department dated 7.6.1978 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9.6.1978 insofar as it relates to Plot No. 13, Bharathi Nagar, 101, Valasaravakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District and quash the same.2. In the said Government Order dated 7.6.1978 which is being impugned in the above writ petition, the first respondent, by exercising his power under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, declared that the petitioner's land described above was needed for a public purpose for the New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The admitted facts of the case are that the Government passed a G.O. Rt. No. 136, Housing dated 14.5.1975 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire the land for an extent of 248.18 acres in the Valasaravakkam Vi...
Malliga Vs. A.P. Kathija Beevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ302
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First respondent/tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1988, on the file of Rent Controller, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner.2. Respondents herein filed the Eviction Petition against the petitioner on three grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in paying rent, (2) tenant has committed acts of waste in the property so as to reduce the value and utility of the building and (3) that she has unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the second counter petitioner named therein.3. The only ground that survives for consideration in this Revision is, whether the tenant has unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the second counter petitioner, who is not impleaded in this revision petition.4. The other two grounds were found against the land-lords and they have become final.5. Both the authorities below have held that the sub-lease alleged by the landlords is true, and that the same was without the written consent of the landlords.6. As against the said allegation, the revision...
Indian Organic Chemicals Limited Vs. Radha Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ431
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 70 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. The landlady sought eviction of the revision petitioner on two grounds viz., (1) default in payment of rent. It is said that rent for the months of July, 1991 to December, 1991 were defaulted; (2) The building is required bona fide for her own occupation. It is stated that the landlady and her family members are now living in New Delhi and they want to settle at Madras and the building in question is the only building owned by her at Madras and the landlady and her family members need the building for their own occupation.3. In the counter statement, both these allegations are denied. The revision petitioner submitted that it had not committed any default, much less wilful default. It has also contended that the present claim is not in good faith and the intention of the landlady is to let out the building for a higher rent.4. Both the auth...
Subramaniam and ors. Vs. Valliammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ540
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. No. 711 of 1979, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Erode, are the appellants. 5th appellant is the legal representative of 1st appellant who died pending suit.2. Respondents were also impleaded only in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, who died after the dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate court and before the institution of this second appeal.3. Malaya Gounder, who is now no more, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the following allegations:The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff and his younger brother Marappa Gounder, and they constituted a Joint Hindu Family. Marappa Gounder died in or about 1922 leaving behind his wife Nachayee and only daughter Ammani Ammal. He had no sons, and, being a joint family property, by survivorship plaintiff became absolute owner of those properties. Nachayee also died some-time in the year 1925. When Marappa ...
Sri Vedantha Sthapana Sabha, Represented by Its Present Secretary, S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ265
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.11.1995 in Appeal No. 240 of 1984 dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, dated 30.11.1982 in O.S. No. 257 of 1981. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. The case of the appellant is as under : The appellant Sabha from out of its collections from the members of the Sabha, founded Sri Lakshmi Hayavadhana Perumal Temple. The Sabha was duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the object of the Sabha is both religious and secular in nature. One of the objects of the Sabha is to construct a temple for the exclusive worship of its members. In or about 1958, the temple in question was constructed on the land donated by one P.S. Srinivasan of St. Thomas Mount and the construction was completed during 1972. The management and the day-to-day affairs...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »