Chennai Court April 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.
Nizar Zaffar Lilali Vs. H.A.K. Mohammed MoshIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad344; (1999)IIMLJ679
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nizar Zaffar Lilani, the tenant having aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Madras in R.C. A. No. 913 of 1993 dated 2-3-1995 in confirming the fair order and decretal order of the XVI Court of Small Causes, Madras in M.P. No. 266 of 1993 in R.C.O.F. No. 2750 of 1991 dated 18-8-1993, dismissing the application filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller dated 17-2-1992.2. The facts leading to the presentation of this revision before this Court could be summarised as follows :--(a) The petitioner is the tenant under the respondents, in respect of a non-residential portion for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, M/s. Khazana Arts and Antiques is the name of the business under which the tenant is carrying on business in Handicrafts as sole proprietor. Since the tenant was not regular in payment of rents and neglected to pay the amount for the period from 1-1-1991 to 30-9-1991, d...
Adammal and ors. Vs. Poosari Vellaya Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad390; (1999)3MLJ83
ORDERK. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Defendants are the petitioners. The first respondent plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S. No. 1314 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem on 26-10-1986. The defendants filed the written statement on 5-1 -1987.2. On the application filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court to go to the spot and make an inspection and file a report. Accordingly, on 13-8-90, the Commissioner, after inspection of the suit property in the presence of the parties and counsel, filed a report along with two Plans, marked as A and B.3. Objecting to the said report, petitioners/ defendants filed a petition on 28-8-90 requesting to remit the report to the same Commissioner for submitting an additional report on (a) girth of all the trees mentioned in his report; (b) age of all the trees mentioned in his report and (c) the area of S. No. 61/B in the possession of ...
Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited Vs. Tamil Nadu Glass Works Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CompLJ36(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Leave is sought by ICICI Ltd. as also by two banks for continuing the proceedings initiated by them against the company in liquidation. Even before the winding up order came to be made on 25.6.1996, ICICI Lid. had instituted a suit in the High Court of Bombay in its capacity as secured creditor and had also se cured, from that court an order appointing the court receiver as receiver for the properties of the company in liquidation. It must be mentioned here that those properties are situated at the outskirts of the city of Chennai. Indian Bank and Allahabad Bank who also claim to be secured creditor of the company have filed their claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Madras. It is stated that they are also parties to the proceedings initiated by ICICI at Bombay and, similarly, ICICI is also party to the proceedings initiated by them at Chennai. The company in liquidation is a party to all those proceedings.2. All these secured creditors have expressed...
Dheeran Chinnamalai Transportcorporation Ltd. Vs. Donald Vassou and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1076; (1999)IIMLJ656
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the claimant No. 9 in M.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli is challenged in this appeal by the Dheeran Chinnamalai TransportCorporation Ltd., the appellant herein.2. I have heard the counsel for the parties.3. In my view, on a short and simple ground, the impugned award has to be set aside and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.4. The claim was made in M.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1989 by the claimants seeking for a compensation of Rs. 12,50,550 for the death of Elvis Vassou. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials placed by both the parties, concluded that both the victim and the bus driver contributed to the accident by their negligence in the ratio of 50:50 and held that the claimant No. 9 who is dependent on the income of the deceased was entitled to 50 per cent of the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.5. Though there is no appeal by...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Devadas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ925; (1999)IIMLJ685
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Respondent No. 3 in M.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruppur is the appellant in the above appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein/claimants in the said petition prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the death of one Gnanamani in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 2.6.91. The court below on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for Rs. 40,000 in favour of the claimants and directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein to pay the same. Aggrieved by the said award, National Insurance Co. Ltd. alone has filed the present appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company would contend that inasmuch as the rider of the vehicle in question, namely, moped No. TCI 7833 was not having licence to drive the same and having pleaded guilty by admitting the offence and paid fine in the criminal proceedings, t...
M.M.S. Abdul Wahab Vs. A.P. Abdul Hameed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ735
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. When the stay petitions in all the civil revision petitions were taken up, all the advocates appearing in the civil revision petitions unanimously requested this Court to dispose of the civil revision petition itself as the civil revision petitions are relating to the management of an educational institution and the continuance of the selected trustees in office is only for three years, Therefore, all the civil revision petitions were taken up for final disposal.2. These twelve civil revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 25.9.1998 in O.S. No. 6 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.3. The matter relates to the selection of hereditary and non-hereditary trustees to Athiramapattinam M.K.N. Madrasa Trust. The petitioners are applicants, who were not selected by the District Judge, Thanjavur. The respondents in these revision petitions are those who have been selected by the District Judge, Thanjavur, under the category of...
Gunabhooshanammal Vs. Santha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ520
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 104 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Ami who had lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, North Arcot dated 30.11.1992 made in A.S.No. 36 of 1992 in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ami dated 31.3.1992 made in O.S.No. 104 of 1988.2. For convenience the parties shall be referred as arrayed before the trial court.3. At the time of admission the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court.When the plaintiff as P.W.1 has admitted thusWhether the lower appellate court is right in having decreed the suit?4. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Thillai Natarajan, husband of the first defendant, that the suit property was sold in court auction, that one Ismail was the court auction purchaser, that the said Ismail conveyed ...
T.B. Nath and Others Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC145
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in 6.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the filed of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court are the appellants in this second appeal.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of thelearned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 10.7.1997 madein A.S.No. 44 of 1997 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 20thSeptember, 1996 made in O.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the file of the trial court. Atthe time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law wereframed by this Courts:-(i) Whether the lease granted in favour of the 1st respondent stoodterminated on the expiry of the period of the lease as stated in the lawyer'snotice Ex.A.7 dated 12.10.1978 whether on such termination, the appellantsbecame entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit? (ii) Assuming without conceding that there was a valid renewal of thelease as claimed by the 1st res...
M.S. Sivakumar, Managing Director, M/S. Agni Communications Pvt. Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC432
ORDER1. Petitioner in W.P. 1277 of 1998 is the appellant before us. 2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 and restore possession of the petition portion in the ground floor ofpremises No. 567, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras - 18 to the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 6 pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to petitioner and pass such other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Material facts may be summarised thus: 5th respondent, is the owner of the premises in question and it is the case of appellant that he has taken on monthly rent three rooms and a toilet in Door No. 567, Anna Salai, Madras located in the middle portion having an area of 580 sq.ft. for non-residential purposes. It is further case of appellant that two tenants adjoining the said premises vacated and landlord also agreed to lease out the said p...
M/S. K.R.M. Money Lenders Rep by Its Power Agent Karuppiah Vs. Mr. A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC540; (1999)3MLJ51
ORDER1. The plaintiff, a partnership firm who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998 made in A.S. No. 70 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1997 made in O.S.No. 67 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvellore.2. This court ordered notice of motion to the respondents as the controversy requires to be decided in this second appeal lies in a narrow compass and it is not necessary to refer to the exhibits as such.3. The question that has been raised before this court being whether the lower appellate court has acted illegally in framing an issue and deciding the same against the appellant without a pleading or proof with respect to either registration of the firm or the bar as to adjudication of claim at the instance of an unregistered firm witho...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »