Chennai Court June 1997 Judgments
Subramanian and 2 Others Vs. Karuppayee Ammal and 15 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC79
ORDER1. Defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage dated 3.8.1950. The plaintiffs' case is as follows:-The suit properties belong to the plaintiffs. They have executed an Othi in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit properties for Rs. 300 on 3.8.1950 for a period of five years. Possession was also handed over to the first defendant. The period prescribed for the Othi has expired. In spite of a request and notice the defendants have failed to hand over the suit properties and hence the suit.2. The defendants contended as follows:-The defendants do not admit that the plaintiffs have title and possession in respect of the suit properties either or the date of the suit of prior to that. It is not admitted that the plaintiffs executed the Othi in favour of the defendants. The suit properties are ancestral properties of the first defendant. They have been granted patta. Defendants 2 and 3 have acquired prescriptive title by way...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramanian and 6 Others Vs. Kaliammal by Guardian and Next Friend ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC138
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Sivaganga made in A.S.No.19 of 1982 on 3-8- 1983.2. The facts of this case are as follows:-The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption, alleging as follows:- The property called 'Subramania Voikkal' is situate in the village of Vanthavasi, hamlet of Enapuram, Sivaganga Taluk. The property originally belonged to the plaintiff's brother Alagarsamy Servai. On 3-5-1965, he mortgaged the property in favour of Meenakshi, mother of defendants 1 to 6 for a sum of Rs. 500. The mortgagee died in 1976. The suit property is now enjoyed by defendants 1 to 7. Alagarsamy Servai died on 30.12.1965, leaving his mother Arumugathammal and his sister, the plaintiff. Arumugathammal succeeded to the properties of Alagarsamy Servai and enjoyed them till her death in 1966. After her death the plaintiff is enjoying the property. She is entitled to redeemthe suit property. The period of redemption fixed has already expired. Notic...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corpn., Madras Vs. Shanmugha theatres, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 16, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 283 of 1983. 2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated October 24, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 26 of 1983. 3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 7, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shanmugha theatres and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ89
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (here-inafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.12.1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 283 of 1983.2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 24.10.1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 26 of 1983.3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.9.1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madra...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthuramalingam and Others Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3501
ORDER1. Leelavathi, the unfortunate victim in this case, has been done away with, in a brutal attack allegedly made by the petitioners and another in a broad-day light in a main bazar at Villapuram, Madurai, at about 8.30 a.m. on 23-4-1997, probably for having elected as a Lady Councillor for Ward No. 59, in the Corporation Election at Madurai in Oct. 1996. 2. The petitioners herein are seeking grant of bail from this Court. There are totally six accused in this case. The petitioners are A-2, A-1, A-3 to A-5 respectively. They are concerned with Cr. No. 334 of 1997 of Keerathurai Police Station, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302, I.P.C. 3. The facts are these :- (i) The first informant in this case Mr. V. K. Kuppusamy, is the husband of the victim Leelavathi. He is working as Tinker in eversilver polishing shed. Both husband and wife were residing along with their three daughters in Nadar compound, Villapuram main road, Madurai. The victim Leelavathi was a full...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rohini Ananthanarayanan Vs. General Manager, Bharat Heavy Electric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1229Mad
1. The appellant joined the respondent Company as EDP Operator in the year 1974. She had undergone several transfers and while she was working as Assistant, Grade I at Ranipet, it is stated that she used to go all the way from Madras to Ranipet because her family was located at Madras. She has referred to these aspects only to show that she was undergoing considerable difficulties on account of the transfers and also on account of the long distance travelled by her from Madras to Ranipet. By a show cause notice dated November 1, 1990, the following charges were framed against the appellant : 'You have been habitually absenting unauthorisedly from duty without any prior permission. You were warned orally and in writing on numerous occasions to desist from the habit of absenting yourself. You did not improve your attendance. Hence a charge sheet was instituted vide No. BAP : P&A; : 2090139 dated March 23, 1990 for unauthorised absence and punishment was also imposed. Inspite of all the a...
Tag this Judgment!A. Lakshminarayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ549
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2705 of 1996 is against the common order dated 20.2.1995 in M.P. No. 973 of 1993 in E.P. No. 664 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 2852 of 1989.2. C.R.P. No. 2706 of 1996 is against the very same common order dated 20.2.1996 in M.P. No. 299 of 1994 in E.P. No. 664 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 2852 of 1989.3. M.P. No. 973 of 1993 was filed for dismissing the E.P. No. 664 of 1993. While M.P. No. 299 of 1994 is for permission to amend the E.P. No. 664 of 1993 by adding 'the back portion only' before the words 'No. 32, Namasivaya Chetty Lane, Washermanpet, Madras.' By a common order dated 20.2.1995, the learned 16th Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, allowed M.P. No. 973 of 1993 and dismissed M.P. No. 299 of 1994. Hence, these two civil revision petitions were filed by the landlord.4. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 2852 of 1989 against the tenant and obtained an ex parte order dated 2.5.1990. The tenant was occupying 4,000 sq.ft. in door Nos. 31 and 32, Namasivaya ...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas659(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single judge dated March 4, 1992, in W.P. No. 4218 of 1984, whereunder the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, Bank of Madura Ltd., Coimbatore, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the Commissioner of Payments under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in Claim Case No. CP/1/IV/Sarada/77, dated September 4, 1982, and of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, who is constituted as the appellate authority under the Act, dated August 23, 1983, in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1983. 2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversy before us are not in serious doubt or dispute. Sarada Textile Mills is a textile mill public limited company, which has been indisputably taken over under the Act and the same is set out as item 98 in the First Schedule of the said Act....
Tag this Judgment!Surla Alias Sudalaimuthu and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC7
ORDER1. The only ground urged in this bail petition filed before this Court by Mr. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, who argued at length, is this :- 'The petitioners are suffering from AIDS/HIV positive and are counting their last days. On humane consideration, they should be allowed to die in their town.' 2. This application is stoutly opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the petitioners are the main accused in the case which relates to the attempt made on the life of Ms. V. S. Chandralekha, I.A.S. (resigned) by throwing acid on her face and body, while she was travelling in a car, to her office, and that the investigation is reopened at the intervention of the Apex Court, and that the said investigation discloses, that apart from the petitioners, against whom charge sheet has already been filed, some other persons are also involved, and that now the C.B.I. - the investigating agency is making all efforts to book all other persons also, wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Educational Officer and anr. Vs. V. Subbaraj and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC355; (1997)IIMLJ596
ORDERJ. Kanakaraj, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2314 of 1980 dated 21.7.1986. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the first respondent. It may be necessary to notice the brief facts on which the writ petition itself was filed.2. The first respondent (writ petitioner) sought to quash the order of the Educational Tribunal in C.M.A.No. 66 of 1979 confirming the orders of the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade teacher in the Hindu Aided Middle School in a leave vacancy on 2.7.1973 and he continued to hold the said post till 8.10.1973. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed as the secondary Grade Teacher in regular vacancy in the very same school with effect from 9.10.1973 and he held that post till 4.10.1978. The writ petitioner was appointed as the Headmaster of the Middle School with effect ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »