Chennai Court June 1997 Judgments
R. Kuppusamy Vs. Kanagalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC442
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Judgment-debtor in C.P.No. 358 of 1988, on the file of Additional Family Court Judge, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner herein filed the above petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Pending litigation, respondent herein moved applications as I.A.Nos. 153 and 154 of 1988, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. After hearing both sides, an order was passed on 11.10.1989, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per mensem from 1.1.1989 till the disposal of the main petition, and also Rs. 500 towards litigation expenses. A month's time was granted for payment of the same, which was subsequently extended on the application of the petitioner.3. In spite of time being granted, petitioner did not pay the amount and, therefore, non-compliance of the Courts direction, the main O.P. itself was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent also moved the Criminal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dulasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ136; 1997(3)CTC168; (1998)IMLJ609
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since common questions involve in all the above appeals, the same may be disposed of by the following Orders:2. All the above appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability in view of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as terms and conditions of the policy executed in the respective cases.3. In C.M.A.No.227 of 1987 the wife and children of the deceased Varadarasu Pillai have filed M.C.O.P.No.l30 of 1985 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation. Since the deceased died while he was travelling in a goods vehicle accompanying the goods, they have impleaded the owner of the lorry as well as his insurer as respondents. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs. 55,250 in favour of the petitioner therein and directed both the respondents to pay the same joint...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dulasi Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ609
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since, common questions involve in all the above appeals, the same may be disposed of by the following order:2. All the above appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability in view of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as terms and conditions of the policy executed in the respective cases.3. In C.M.A. No. 227 of 1987 the wife and children of the deceased Varadarasu Pillai have filed M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 1985 before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation. Since the deceased died while he was travelling in a goods vehicle accompanying the goods, they have impleaded the owner of the lorry as well as his insurer as respondents. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs. 55,250 in favour of the petitioner therein and directed both the respondents to pay the same jointl...
Tag this Judgment!John Sylem Vs. Chanthanamuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ537
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second plaintiff, who was impleaded as legal heir of original plaintiff in O.S. No. 106 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil is the appellant in this appeal.2. The following reliefs are asked in the plaint:(a) The title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property to be declared and a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from entering in the suit property, from cutting down and removing the trees and from committing any other kinds of waste over the suit property be passed;(b) The plaintiff be given a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,000 towards damages from the defendants and their assets;(c) The plaintiff be given her costs of the suit from the defendants;(d) Such other reliefs which this Court deems just and proper for the ends of justice may also be granted.The relevant facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal may be summarised as follows.3. It is averred in the plaint that the whole area comprised ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›