Chennai Court January 1999 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.
Radhakrishnan Vs. Vetri Velayuthasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ100
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. A suit on the small causes jurisdiction was filed before the learned District Munsif, Mayiladudurai to recover a sum of Rs. 197.55 representing the rent due for the land in question. The suit was decreed. Hence the defendant is before this Court in this revision.2. I heard Mr. S. Soundhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. On facts, the learned trial Judge found that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the predecessors in interest for the parties before the lower court, who are now before this Court and it continued even thereafter. The case of the tenant that the tenancy is in existence for well over 30 years; no rents whatsoever were collected and therefore he perfected his title by adverse possession, was not accepted. Therefore, when this finding is based on evidence and appreciation of the materials placed before the court, it is not possible for this Co...
A. Grahadurai Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C Ex. and Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT51(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. For the convenience, I shall refer the facts in the first writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 4536 of 90. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to for bear from giving Central Excise Duty clearance to the safety matches manufactured by third respondent herein with the petitioner's approved trade lable, namely, 'camel' affixed thereon. Similar relief has been prayed for in the other writ petitions.3. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4536 of 90 is as follows :- The present writ petition has been filed by one A. Grahadurai, Managing Trustee of P. Ayya Nadar Charitable Trust, Sivakasi. According to him, the said Trust is the absolute and exclusive owner of the Registered Trade Mark 'Camel' for safety matches. The said trade mark has been registered as early as in 1954 under the Tra...
Panduranga Rao Vs. Osman Khan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ404
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1985 made in O.S.No. 141 of 1982 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Salem, thereby dismissing the suit, filed by the appellant herein for specific performance of the contract, without costs.2. The facts and circumstances, as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint are that the suit schedule 'A' properties belonged to the mother of the defendants 1 to 6, viz., Majubi alias Khairoonkhathu, who died in 1977, leaving behind her the defendants 1 to 6 to succeed to her estate, since her husband had pre-deceased her; that in September, 1978, defendants 1 to 3, for themselves and authorised by defendants 4 and 5 their brothers and the 6th defendant-their sister, represented to the plaintiff to negotiate and sell the suit property and offered the same for sale to the plaintiff, further promising to evict the tenants and hand over vacant physical possession of the property at the time of exec...
V.K. Kaliappa Gounder Sons Trading as Sun Beedi Traders Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ413
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above appeals are respectively directed against the common judgment and decree dated 20.9.1996 made in O.S.No. 49 of 1988 and O.S.No. 4 of 1991 by the Court of Principal District Judge, North Arcot District at Vellore, wherein the appellant in both the above appeals herein is the plaintiff in both the said suits. The respondent in both the above appeals is also one and the same and he is the defendant in both the suits in the trial court.2. The first suit in O.S.No. 49 of 1988 which is concerned with A.S.No. 1000 of 1996, the appellant has instituted for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark Nos. 168977, 168986 and 104626 as described in schedule 'A' by using the offending trade mark as described in schedule 'B' or by using any other trade mark of the plaintiff's Registered Trade Mark.3. The other suit in O.S.No. 4 of 1991 has been instituted for permanent injunction restrai...
Varadaraju Vs. C. Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC549; (1999)IIMLJ61
ORDER1. This revision is filed by respondent in A.S.No.185 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal. 2. Respondent herein filed O.S.256 of 1993, on the file of District Munsif's Court at Rasipuram. Judgment of the trial Court reads thus: 'Suit for permanent injunction. To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff preventing the defendant from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties by means of permanent injunction 'and awarding costs of suit.The following issues were framed: Defendant and his Counsel are present and ready for the trial. Plaintiff present, but he is not ready for conducting trial. Hence the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution of case.' It is against the above said judgment, plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 185 of 1997. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition on the ground th...
Krishnamurthy Chettiar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep, by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC300
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. The detenu is the petitioner herein2. An order of detention was passed on 14.9.1998 by the 1st respondent viz., the secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, under section 3(1)(i) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on the ground that the petitioner has indulged in smuggling of goodsand that therefore, it is necessary to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, with a view to preventing him from indulging in smuggling of goods in future.3. On 22.7.1998, the petitioner Thiru. Krishnamurthy Chettiar, who is a holder of Indian passport, arrived from Singapore by Singapore Airlines Flight No.SQ 410 on 22.7.1998, with two hand baggage, one baggage with limited release tag, bearing No. SQ. 029093, and one baggage with checked in tag bearing No.SQ 100683, and declared that he was not in possession of VCR/VCP/TV/Gold, and that he was only ...
A. Ramesh Vs. A. Manohar Prasad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad149
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition/plaint for grant of Letters of Administration.2. The main averments found in the plaint are as follows :Varaprasada Rao alias L.V. Prasad was ordinarily residing at No. 288, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Madras 18 before and at the time of death on 22-6-1994. During his lifetime Varaprasada Rao executed his last will and testament dated 27-9-1990 in the presence of Nandagopal and Kasturi Rangan at No. 8, Vijayaraghava Road, T. Nagar, Madras 17. The will was in the custody of Nandagopal one of the attesting witnesses. After his death, Nandagopal forwarded a copy of the Will to the petitioner/plaintiff. On a citation taken by the petitioner/plaintiff, Nandagopal lodged the original Will in the Court. Varaprasada Rao has bequeathed certain properties in favour of the petitioner and therefore he has filed this petition/plaint for grant of Letters of Administration on the said Will dated 27-9-1990.3. A caveat was filed by the...
Ramasami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Admn. Deptt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad393
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiffs who succeeded in the trial Court and lost their case in the first appellate Court arc the appellants.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows :--The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple. The suit temple is an ancient temple situate at Iyengarpalayam in Kancheepuram and it is called as Manikandeeswarar and also as Panamaneeswarar, In the concerned Village, there were 23 families ancestrally and this suit temple was established only for exclusive worship of these families belonging to Senkuntha Mudaliar community people and only that community people were managing that temple. So, the suit temple possesses denominational character and it is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution. Now, the said 23 families have got reduced to 12 families and the plaintiffs have been appointed as trustees only by that 12 family members and the plaintiffs are managing this temple as hereditary trustees. The defen...
G.B. Devasagayam Vs. K.R. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ383
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner/tenant has filed these revision petitions aggrieved against the order passed in R.C.A.Nos. 108, 109 and 110 of 1993 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. The respondents/landlords filed an application for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for a period of eight months i.e., October, 91 to May, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 1,300 per month. The landlords filed I.A.No. 52 of 1993 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Act') to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as on date. The trial court passed an order on 6.7.1993 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount, since no counter was filed. The hearing date was fixed by 23.7.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 281 of 1993 to extend the time for depositing the amount by one month. The said I.A.No. 281 of 1993 was dismissed after hearing the...
P.P. Srinivasa Battachariar Vs. Paramasivam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ47
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit property is a portion situate in Periyeri Village, Salem Town, Ward D, Block 19 T.S. No. 36. The property originally belonged to one Maruthai Ammal, wife of Seguva Pillai and Sakunthala and Lakshmi are two daughters. They are the legal heirs of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal. The 1st defendant entered into an agreement with the owners of the property to purchase the entire area measuring 59 cents. He is a real estate dealer, doing business. The property was put in possession of the 1st defendant by the owners in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The 1st defendant levelled the lands and divided into house plots and laid roads. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell plot No.70 as vacant site at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq.ft. on 21.6.1977. The plaintiff paid Rs. 501 by way of advance and entered into an agreement with th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »