Chennai Court March 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.
Rama Natarajan Vs. Alexander Xavier Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad236; 1999(1)CTC611; I(2000)DMC120
ORDER1. The petitioner/wife has filed this petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnised on 8.10.1986 is null and void.2. The main averments found in the petition are as follows:The petitioner Rama Natarajan alias Rama Alexander Xavier Nathan was married to the respondent Alexander Xavier Nathan on 8.10.1986 as per the Roman Catholic rites after converting herself as a Catholic and embracing the Catholic faith from Hinduism. After the marriage, the petitioner realised that the respondent was not compatible in his behaviour towards her. Due to certain mental and psychological trauma which frustrated her relationship with him more so because of relative impotency towards the petitioner. The petitioner thought that the physical and psychological debilities found in the respondent would be rectified by love and affection and medical aid. But the obstinate attitude of the respondent f...
P. Gopirathnam and 4 Others Vs. Ferrodous Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC181
ORDERJudgement pronounced by S.S. Subramani, J.1. This case had been placed before Full Bench pursuant to referenceorder dated 8.12.1997.2. Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract as C.S.No.130 of 1981 and a learned Judge of this court passed decree directing appellants to execute sale deed as per decree dated. 15.3.1991.3. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendants preferred the appeal and oneof the questions that was raised before Division Bench was that whether theagreement is enforceable The contention was that since defendants areholding more than the ceiling limits under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1978. Whether an agreement executed by them, could beenforced and will it not contravene the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 ?4. In Mariamma Varghese v.K.V.Balasubramaniam & 11 others, 1994 (1) L.W.391 the Division Bench held thus,'Apart from the finding of the court below which non-suited the plaintif...
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Erode Branch Vs. Thangammal and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999ACJ1240; 1999(2)CTC43; (1999)IIMLJ443
ORDERJudgment pronounced by N.K. Jain A.C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13.8.1996 referred the matter for, re-consideration of the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Kamalam, 1992 (I) MLJ 41. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the reference are as follows: On account of the death of one S. Palanisamy on 13.7.1989 due to the motor accident which took place on 8.7.89, as a result of the head-on-collision between the scooter driven by the said Palanisamy, since deceased and the owner of motorcycle driven by one K.N. Kumaraswamy, the fifth respondent herein, on a claim petition a sum of Rs. 6,69,058 was awarded. The owner of the motorcycle remained exparte in the tribunal. The claim of the insurance Company in the tribunal is that the compensation claimed is excessive. 3. This appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Company. It was argued that the Insurance Company, at the tribunal did not raised the fact of finding and as such th...
D. AgastIn and Another Vs. Devasagayan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad341; 1999(2)CTC555
ORDER1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 229 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, are the revision petitioners. The first respondent is the plaintiff in that suit and the second respondent is the third defendant in that suit. A document dated 5.8.1991 came to be marked through the plaintiff during trial. According to the plaintiff, it was a partition list evidencing tile event of partition that had already taken place. According to the defendants, it is the partition deed itself creating an interest in praesenti over the immovableproperties worth more than Rs.100 and therefore it is inadmissible in evidence in the context of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. The learned trial Judge by order dated 8.7.1998 overruled the objections of the defendants and directed the document to be marked as Ex.A-2. In so doing, the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the probative value of the said document could be looked into at a later stage and the defendants have...
Special Tahsildar (La) Adi Dravidar Welfare, Saidapet Vs. M. Naganatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC630
ORDER1. Appeal against the order dated 16.6.1987 in L.A.O.P. No. 374 of 1986 on the file of the learned Sub Ordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. 2. The Irulars of Madarpakkam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District represented to the Government of Tamil Nadu allotment of house sites to them for construction of houses with required amenities. The Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to acquire 1.53 acres of dry land in Survey No. 108/5 B belonging to one Elumalai and 5 acres in Survey No. 108/6 belonging to the claimant Thiru M. Naganathan totalling to 6.53 acres in Madarpakkam village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallore District for allotment of house sites to Irulars of Madarpakkam village. Accordingly the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired the abovesaid lands measuring 6.53 acres by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27.11.1985 after approving the draft notification under Sec...
Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya Vs. State of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad267; (1999)IIMLJ459
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner-University applied to the respondent for issue of No-Objection Certificate for making an application to the Medical Council of India for starting a Medical College in collaboration with Tamil Nadu Hospital Academic Trust. There was no reply from respondent. But the respondent issued a Notification in G. O. No. 347 dated 18-6-1998. In that Notification, it is said that the Government has made it clear that the No Objection Certificate will not be issued by the Government for setting up medical colleges by self-financing institutions. This decision is purported to have been arrived by the Government on the basis of a Report by a High Power Committee appointed to look into the working of educational institutions conducted by self-financing institutions. It is said that the report of the Committee has not been made public, nor was it furnished to the petitioner-University before the above decision was taken. According to the petitioner, the above said n...
Ramamoorthy N. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR967]; (2000)ILLJ1142Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the respondent relating to his order in P.G.A. No. 28 of 1980, dated September 17, 1990, and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, the third respondent has filed a counter- affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the others, and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents availab...
J.D. Muthukrishnan Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3573
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks to initiate contempt proceedings against respondents for the alleged willful disobedience of orders passed in Cri. O. P. No. 8582 of 1992 dated 17-8-1992 and pass suitable orders and render justice.2. Petitioner along with his mother and brothers filed O.S. 2125 of 1991 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee against Kundrakudi Aadinam as well as his agent for an injunction to restrain them from interfering in any way with their peaceful possession of landed property to an extent of 1.42 acres.3. Fourth respondent in the contempt application, agent of Aadhinam also filed a suit against petitioner and others stating that he was in possession of the property and also filed an injunction application. An ad interim injunction was granted and the same was subsequently vacated by Munsif, and finally in C.R.P. 2786 of 1993 this Court also confirmed the order of vacation of injunction against Adhinam. It was thereafter 4th respondent again tried t...
Nagai District Farmers Welfare and Protection Association, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ322
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner-association aggrieved against the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 292, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (B1) Department, dated 21.12.1998 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21.12.1998, has filed the above writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, its members are mainly engaged in the cultivation of paddy for their livelihood. The paddy so produced by them was being sold to the paddy dealers without any restriction.3. Under the impugned orders, the 1st respondent government introduced the monopoly system of procurement in Cauvery Delta area, which has been described specifically in the said order. According to the said order, the paddy in those areas shall be purchased only by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., on behalf of the 1st respondent, and there shall be no purchase of paddy/rice from the whole sale dealer in the above areas. With respect to the price, according to th...
Y. Ghanadhas and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ370
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioners seek issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in letter No.Ms.943, dated 8.7.1996, quash the same and direct first respondent to grant the scale of pay of Rs. 975-1660 to petitioners with effect from 1.6.1988 with all arrears and other benefits and pass such further orders.2. Eighteen petitioners have joined together to file this writ petition of whom, 17th petitioner has been promoted as Assistant and third petitioner has retired from service with effect from 31.8.1996. But all of them joined together only for one purpose, which relate to their entitlement to a particular scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1988, which is common cause for all of them.3. All the petitioners are junior bailiffs in High Court. According to petitioners, Junior bailiffs are equated to Junior Assistants in High Court from first pay commission onward and scale of pay was also identical. In the first pay commission, Junior Assistant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »