Chennai Court June 1999 Judgments
Dr. Kumari Shantha Arogyadoss (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Tmt. G.C. Kamala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ577
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 5097 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants before this Court.2. The material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal could be summarised thus: One R.N. Danapal Mudaliar was the owner of the plaint schedule property. He left his widow Philomina Ammal, Maria Soosai, R.N.K. Sundaram, Papoo Ammal and Abirami Soosai, as his legal heirs. Defendants 1 to 5 in the suit are the children of Papoo Ammal, one of the daughter of Danapal Mudaliar. Plaintiffs and 8th defendant are the children of R.N.K. Sundaram, one of the sons of deceased acquirer.3. It is the case of plaintiff that late Danapal Mudaliar died intestate. On the death of his widow Philomina Ammal, entire plaint property devolved on their two daughters and two sons in equal shares, plaintiffs haying entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint property. It is their further case that documents have been created by defendants as if their la...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation Vs. N. Rajma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC269
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. As against the award of Rs. 52,850/-, payable to Rajamani, the respondent herein, this appeal has been presented by the appellant, both on the ground of negligence and of quantum.3. The claimant, respondent herein, is a Constable in 'Q' Branch, CID Office, Pudukkottai. His native place is Kalanivasal. On 7.7.1992 at about 11.35 a.m., the claimant was riding on his Bajaj motor cycle, in order to go to hospital, alongwith one Ayyanar, the pillion rider, from North proceeding towards South. When he was coming near the junction, he attempted to go to the left side towards East, the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation, coming from East, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the rider of the motor cycle, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital where treatment was given. He filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Shantha Bai Vs. Vinod Reuben Vedanayagam Alias Mohamed Yusuf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad215
ORDERA. Raman, J. 1. This is application filed by the petitioner under SECTION 10 and 43 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows :-- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 10-1-1985 at C.S.I. Church, Virugambakkam in accordance with Christian rites and customs. The marriage expenses were borne out by the petitioner's parants. At the time of marriage, the petitioner's parents gave 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent besides house-hold articles. From the date of marriage, the petitioner was ill-treated by the parents of the respondent. They compelled the petitioner to do all sorts of manual works. The petitioner was directed to wash the inner garments of the respondent's elder brother. She was noteven permitted to view the television, listen to the radio and read newspapers. The respondent's parents demanded dowry and the parents of the petitioner expressed their inability to pay. The ill-treatment cont...
Tag this Judgment!Shine Leather Exports and anr. Vs. M. Balasubramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas461(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The petitioners accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C. C. No. 262 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding pending against them.2. The case in brief for disposal of the petition is as follows : The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and another under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Para. 2 of the complaint discloses that the complainant had presented a cheque on June 23, 1998, and the cheque was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. He sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 29, 1998, and the same was received by the petitioners on July 1, 1998. The complainant again presented the very same cheque on September 4, 1998, and the same was returned for insufficient funds. Once again the respondent sent another notice on September 10, 1998, and the private complaint was filed on October 26, 1998. The cause of acti...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramakrishnan Vs. R.M. Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ404
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. These appeals are directed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in C.S. Nos. 1586 of 1988 and 130 of 1990.2. The case of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1586 of 1988 is as follows:The suit property door No. 31, Jambulinga Naicken Street, Nungambakkam, Madras-34 originally belonged to one D.K. Sundaresan, the father of the defendant and after his death, the defendant and is brother Rathnam became owner of the suit property. The other heirs of late Sundaresan relinquished their right. The defendant offered to sell his undivided half share in the A schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,12,500. The plaintiff accepted the offer and the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 2.11.1986, in respect of the undivided half share and the transaction was agreed to be completed on or before 30.4.1987. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 50,501 towards the sale consideration on the date of agreement. If there was any default o...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ415
Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is a limited company registered under Companies Act 1956. The defendant is a banking institution. The plaintiff entered into a contract with one Vijay Tanks and Vessels Ltd., Bombay for the performance of certain works. To ensure the due performance of their obligations, the said Vijay Tanks procured from the Bank certain guarantees. The first guarantee is No. 11 of 1980 dated 6.5.1980 and another is No. 93 of 1981 dated 3.9.1981. Under the terms of Guarantee No. l 1 of 1980, the Bank bound themselves as guarantors and primary obligators for a sum of Rs. 33,65,200 on the company's demand for payment by reason of Vijay' Tanks: failure to fulfil its obligations. Under the terms of Guarantee No. 93 of 1981, the Bank Bound themselves unconditionally and irrevocably to pay on demand a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 advanced to Vijay Tanks. Guarantee No. 11/80 was initially to remain in force till 31...
Tag this Judgment!B. Kishore Vs. Manju Alias Manjula
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ269
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 706 of 1993. The petitioner filed the O.P. under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Order 21, Rule 3 of Original Side Rules contending as follows:Petitioner is the father and the respondent is the mother of K. Dinesh born on 22.9.1983. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living in Madras in so many places. The terms between the petitioner and the respondent were not cordial and there were frequent quarrels on account of incompatibility and the respondent was not able to adjust herself to the conditions of the petitioner. The respondent along with the minor son K. Dinesh without any just cause or reason, abruptly left for Bombay in the beginning of October, 1993 and never chosen to come back. The efforts taken by the petitioner have not resulted in any fruitful result so far. The respondent out of ill will and malice is bent upon withdr...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajendran Vs. E.M. Kuthurathullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC606; (1999)3MLJ194
ORDER1. The petitioner/landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed a petition under Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant on amonthly rent of Rs. 300 and after purchase by the respondent, the petitionerattorned tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is carrying onjewellery business in a rental shop in Door No. 359, Bazaar Street, Salem 1.The petitioner purchased the property for the purpose of carrying on his ownbusiness. The petitioner says that the building is more than 60 years old and hehas decided to demolish it and reconstruct a new building with two floorsbefore the occupy the same for his own use to carry on his jewellery business.The petition mentioned building is situated in the centre of Salem town, wherethere are number of jewellery shops. The petitioner further contends that if thebuilding is demolished and reconstructed with two fl...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthivel Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC34
ORDERJudgement pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The detenu has impugned the order of detention made against him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The detenu has been arrested on 6.8.1998 for offences under sections 341, 392, 336 read with section 397 and 506(2) I.P.C., as he was involved on the said date in the occurrence of committing breach of public order by causing threat to one Kasinathan in the public street and robbed from him a sum of Rs. 65 and also a wrist watch.Thereafter, he indulged in throwing soda bottles to cause apprehension in the minds of the public and also brandishing a knife and threatened those who were witnessing the occurrence saying if anyone approached to get hold of him, they would be stabbed. Ultimately, after satisfying with the report of the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on 18.8.1998. 2. The order of detention is impugned by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the detenu...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Transport Employees' Union Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1206Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu refusing to refer Industrial Dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Cheran Transport Employees Union has filed the above writ petition on various grounds. Since the issue involved in the writ-petition is one and the same in the other writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. For the convenience I shall refer the case of the parties in W.P. No. 9439/1992. One Kumaresan who is employed as a conductor in the second respondent-Transport Corporation, was issued with Charge-sheet dated February 25, 1987 stating that he had committed misconduct as per Standing Order 14(d)(ab). It, is further stated that the 2nd respondent without holding enquiry, by an order dated February 20, 1988 imposed punishment of suspension for three days. On behalf of the said workman, the petitioner Union took up the matter before the Conciliat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »