Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. K. Poova Gounder and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC288
ORDER1. This CMSA is directed against the order dated 30.3.92 passed by the District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in CMA.No.37 of 1989.2. The appellant herein got a decree against the first respondent in O.S.No.32 of 1978, O.S.361of 1978 and O.S.No.292 of 1982 and also filed execution petition before the District Munsif Court, Karur. The respondents 2 to 4 are the other creditors of the first respondent and they were also making arrangement to take necessary action against the first respondent. Only at that time the first respondent filed an application in I.P.No.2 of 1989 before the sub-court, Dharmapuri stating that the value of his property is lesser than his debts and he would not be able to satisfy the debts and therefore prayed for an adjudication that he must be adjudicated as an insolvent.3. The application filed by the first respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the first respondent was having 5 acres of land with a motor pump set. He was earning more...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palanisamy and Others Vs. the Sriramapuram Town Panchayat Through I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC683; (1999)IMLJ293
ORDER1. The Petitioners are the lessees under the respondent in respect of the shops that has been leased out in the year 1989 by way of public auction. Two petitioners having participated in the public auction and being successful bidders in the same, the shops have been let out to the them for a period of three years. In the year 1992, the respondent renewed the lease in favour of the petitioners by accepting the rent at the enhanced rate of 15% of the previous year. In the year 1995, the respondent proposed to auction the shop numbers 1, 3 and 6 to 8 in public auction. The petitioners are entitled for the renewal of the lease by paying the enhanced rate of rent at 15% as per the order of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 1991. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 11564 of 1995 before this Court against the impugned auction notice. Thereafter, the lease has been renewed till 31.8.1998. Before the expiry of the current lease period, the respondent/Town...
Tag this Judgment!K. Veeriah Vs. Muthulakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ624
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This Revision, is preferred by K. Veeriah, the petitioner herein/husband, as against the order passed in Cri. R. P. No. 29/96 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai allowing in part, while modifying the order passed in the application for maintenance in M. C. No. 1/95 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.2. Muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/ wife, filed an application claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for herself and for her minor children respondents 2 to 4. The lower Court passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4 minor Sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that those children are living with the pet...
Tag this Judgment!K. Veeriah Vs. Muthulakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC287
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision is preferred by K. Veeriah, the petitioner herein/husband, as against the order passed in Crl. R.P. No. 29/1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mudurai allowing in part, while modifying the order passed in the application for maintenance in M.C. No. 1/95 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.2. Muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/wife, filed an application claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for herself and for her minor children respondents 2 to 4. The lower Court passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4 minor Sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that those children are living with the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonai Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1725
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sonai, the petitioner herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years. This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the revision.2. The facts of the case are these :- (a) P.W. 1 Parvathi, aged about 14 years went to the field of the petitioner, who is the resident of the local village, for cooly work. On 14-11 -88 at about 2.30 p.m., when she was working in the field, the petitioner asked her to go inside the motor room and put on the switch. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went inside the motor room and put on the switch. At that point of time, the petitioner entered into the motor room, locked the room from ,inside and forcibly pushed her on the ground and after removing her clothes, committed rape on her.(b) Thereafter, P.W. 1 got up, opened the door and came running out of the motor room and told her mother P.W. 2 about the incident. Thereafter, P.W: 2 complained to one ...
Tag this Judgment!i. Jairaj Vs. C. Aravinda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ229
ORDERM.K. Arpagavinayagam, J.1. Jairaj, the petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 880/97 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for the offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the case was taken on file on the complaint of the respondent, summons was issued to the petitioner/accused. On appearance the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 204, Cr. P.C. to drop the proceedings arising out of the private complaint against the petitioner and discharge him. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the same as no ground was made out to drop the proceedings. This order is challenged in this revision.2. Though several grounds have been raised in the revision, the main crux of the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint is invalid, inasmuch as the same was taken on file against the company represented by its Director Jairaj, the pet...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. the Sriramapuram Town Panchayat Through Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ293
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners are the lessees under the respondent in respect of the shops that has been leased out in the year 1989 by way of public auction. The petitioners having participated in the public auction and being successful bidders in the same. The shops have been let out to them for a period of three years. In the year 1992, the respondent renewed the lease in favour of the petitioners by accepting the rent at the enhanced rate of 15% of the previous year. In the year 1995, the respondent proposed to auction the shop numbers 1, 3 and 6 to 8 in public auction. The petitioners are entitled for the renewal of the lease by paying the enhanced rate of rent at 15% as per the order of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 1991. The petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No. 11564 of 1995 before this Court against the impugned auction notice. Thereafter, the lease has been renewed till 31.8.1998, Before the expiry of the current lease period, the res...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminathan Vs. Sri Subramaniaswami Deity Through the Executive Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ553
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1980, made in O.S.No. 61 of 1976 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, thereby declaring the title of the plaintiff to the plaint 'A' schedule property and also ordering the recovery of possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property along with past and future damages.2. The above suit has been filed by the respondent herein for declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property and for recovery of past and future damages.3, The plaint averments, in short, are that the plaint 'A' schedule property, part of which is the 'B' schedule property was belonging to late Lakshmi Ammal, wife of Sankara Narayana Pillai, Tiruchendur, as her self acquisition; that she was pious and intensely devoted to the plaintiff-deity, that herself and her husband were doing religious services, not only the plaintiff-deity, b...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Abubacker Vs. P.K. Rajaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC140; (1999)IMLJ39
ORDER1. This is a second petition for stay of the E.P.No.130 of 1998 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.2. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit as follows: The Respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.198 of 1991 seeking eviction. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority ordered eviction. Hence, the petitioner tiled the above Civil Revision Petition in this Court.3. In C.M.P.No.14166 of 1997 interim stay was granted. Further the interim stay was made absolute on condition that the future rent should be paid before the 10th of every succeeding English calendar month, failing which the stay petition would stand dismissed. Though, future rent was paid regularly, on account of illness of the father, the petitioner could not pay the rents for some months. Hence. E.P.No.130 of 1998 was filed. The Rent Controller has ordered delivery on 1.7.1998. Hence, the petition for stay.4. In the counter, the main ground of obje...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India Vs. Central Scientific Supplies Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)IIIMLJ728
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The above second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned XI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No. 240 of 1985dated 5-9-1985.2. The first defendant in O.S.No. 1614 of 1980 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chcnnai is the appellant herein. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and the second respondent in this appeal is the second defendant in the suit.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,900/- with interest from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of payment. The case set out in the plaint was as follows:-- The plaintiff is a Public Limited Company having its Head Office at No. 29, Stringers Street, Chennai-1. The plaintiff was having a current account with the second defendant, viz., Indian Bank, Tainbaram Branch. The plaintiff, in the normal course of its business, issued a cheque crossed 'Account Payee only' on the second def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »