Chennai Court February 1998 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.
R.N. Jeyaprakash Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3232
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. R.N. Jeyaprakash, the petitioner herein, challenging the impugned order, dismissing his application in Crl. M.P. No. 69 of 1997 in Spl. C. C. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the learned XI Additional and Special Judge, Chennai, requesting for discharge, has resorted to filing of this revision before this Court.2. The State represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. Headquarters, Chennai, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and five others on the allegations that they committed offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 409, 420, I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 409, 409 r/w 109, 420, 420 r/w 109 I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 14(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is A2.3. According to the prosecution, A1 to A6 agreed to do certain illegal acts in respect of placing of purchase orders for sarees and dhoties under the Chief Minister's free distrib...
A. ShamsuddIn Vs. K. Chellappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ99
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1982, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif's Court), Palani, is the revision petitioner.2. These revisions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. In the above R.C.O.P. the order of eviction has become final. When the matter was taken in execution, the Amin reported that he could not identify the building in view of the vague description. Landlord filed an application before the executing court, to give better particulars regarding the building. He filed I.A. No. 30 of 1996 for correction of description of property.4. When I.A. No. 30 of 1996 was filed, tenant took a contention that mere narration of boundaries will not be sufficient. Little more detailed description with side measurements is required without which the property cannot be identified. When such a contention was taken, on the basis of the Commissioner's Report prepared during trial of the R.C.O.P., I.A. No. 6 of 1997 in I.A. No. 30...
P. Angamuthu Mudaliar Vs. Venkatachala Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ656
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 228 of 1985. The respondents herein have filed the suit O.S.No. 228 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai for arrears of rent. The suit was originally dismissed on 19.9.1989. The respondents filed an appeal in A.S.No. 31 of 1990 and the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit was decreed as prayed for and that judgment and decree have become final. When the plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a petition to execute the decree, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an application stating that the judgment and decree of the appellate court cannot be executed and hence the execution petition has to be dismissed. The executing court found that the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 31 of 1990 have become final, against which second appeal was filed and it was also dismissed in the admission stage itself. Therefore, the executing court found that the executing court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›