Chennai Court July 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.
T.A. Naufal Rizwan (Minor) Rep by His Father S. Abubacker Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC253
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions, the revised norms of rural reservation in under challenge. Based on the recommendation of a High Level Committee that because of the locational advantage with regard to schools, coaching for entrance examination etc., rural students were in a disadvantageous position, and that in order to help the bright students of rural areas, a reservation of 15% of seats in professional courses to rural students subject to usual communal reservation was suggested. The said recommendation was accepted and the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 261, Higher Education Department dated 12.5.1997, reserving 15% of the seats in Engineering Colleges and in G.O. Ms. No. 600. Health and Family Welfare Department dated 5.12.1997, in Medical and Dental Colleges to rural students. The Government Orders were upheld by the Division Bench Of this Court in Navarasam Matriculation Higher Secondary - P.T.A. v. State, : (1998)IIIMLJ504 .2. While the matter stood thus, on the b...
Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham Vs. Suresh @ Muthukaruppan and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC491
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 623 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif's Court. Tuticorin is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions. 2. Respondents herein filed two applications in I.A.No. 10 and 11 of 1999 to reopen the case and to recall PWs- 1 and 2, who have already been examined, for further cross-examination. It is averred in the affidavit that when these witnesses were in the box, counsel has inadvertantly omitted to put some material questions and the omission was found out only when the present counsel studied the case for arguments. It is alleged that if the witnesses are not allowed to be cross examined further, they will be put to great hardships. 3. Petitioner herein filed serious objections to the applications and stated that the applications are belated and an after thought. It is said that after examination of witnesses were over, several opportunities were given and 11 months after, these applications were filed. He prayed for dismissal of t...
Ramalatchumi Ammal Vs. T. Jeevanantham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC577
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No. 576 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram is the revision petitioner.2. Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The suit was filed before end of 1992. Written statement was also filed by the petitioner.3. After issues were suggested, the case was included in the list. Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and when the case was posted for evidence of P.W.2, an application was filed in I.A.No. 426 of 1997 seeking permission to file counter claim. In the affidavit in support of the application, it is averred that she wanted to declare the agreement as void and on 21.7.1997, since the plaintiff trespassed into the property, she wanted recovery of possession in the suit itself.4. The same was seriously opposed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order the lower court rejected the permission sought for. That means the counter claim was r...
V. Amudha Vs. S. A. Arumugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ261
ORDERS. S. Subramani, J.1. First plaintiff in O.S.No. 552 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode is the revision petitioner. The above suit was filed to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and the defendants do not have any right to create encumbrance over the same.2. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, since the revision petition is against an order condoning the delay of 2569 days in I.A.No. 1470 of 1997. The above suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were set ex parte and an application was filed to have the ex parte decree set aside. There is a delay of nearly 2600 days and the same was sought to be explained by filing the said application. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that the first respondent herein engaged the counsel on 14.6.1989, but thereafter, he met with an accident and fell ill and continued to be bed ridden till 5.9.1997. He further...
Haji Latif Gani Kachhi Vs. Sangishetty Ramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ604
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This is an Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar Trade Marks at Chennai in Opposition No. MAS 3251 dated 24.3.1998 to the Trade Mark Application No. 479278.2. The respondent (Application) filed an application No. 479278 dated 1.10.1987 for the Registration of the Trade Mark containing the picture of goddess Laxmi and God Ganesh in a sitting posture with the words 'Laxmi Ganesh Beedi' in respect of the product Beedi. The appellant (Opponent) herein entered into the notice of opposition for the registration of the above said trade mark on the ground that they are the registered proprietors of three trade marks viz.,(1) A rectangular label on which the device of Goddess Lakshmi Standing on the lotus.(2) The device of Goddess Lakshmi in a standing pose on a lotus flower with the words 'Lakshmi Chhap'(3) An oval shape with a flower and the words 'Phool Chha...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC227
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal and the cross objection could be disposed of on a short ground.2. The only point urged by the Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the award of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is wrong, since transfer/sale of the motor vehicle had not been intimated to the Insurance Company and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to be fastened with the liability.3. Though the Full Bench of this Court in Saroja and Ors. v. Gopal and Ors. 1999 2 LW 11 : II (1999) ACC 74, would accept this point which has been raised in this appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Apex Court recently in the decision reported in : [1999]2SCR476 G. Govindan v. Nefw India Assurance Co. Ltd., that even in the absence of intimation about the transfer or sale to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability with regard to third party.4. Therefore, this appeal fails o...
State Bank of India, Its Branch Manager, Tirupattur Vs. Kasim, Proprie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC109
ORDER1. The plaintiff which failed in its attempt to get decree against the defendants in the suit in O.S.No. 17 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, has filed the above Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the above suit on the basis that the 1st defendant sought for Cash Credit Facility to an extent of 12,000 which was sanctioned by the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant had agreed to be the guarantor for the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the 2nd defendant for a sum of Rs. 12,000 on 28.2.1975, promising to pay him or order at the State Bank of India, Tirupattur, the above sum of Rs. 12,000with interest at half percent, over and above the advance rate with a minimum of 14% per annum with monthly rests. The 2nd defendant in turn had made and endorsement on the back of the promissory note 'pay' State Bank of India or order and handover the same to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant had also executed an agreement for the said facility on 28....
A. Kesavan Vs. Madurai-kamaraj University, Rep. by Its Registrar, Madu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC151
ORDER1. Petitioner was plaintiff in O.S.No. 1233 of 1993 on the file of the Sub-court, Madurai. The suit was for a direction to the University to pay a sum of Rs. 1,51,500 with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation and damages. As many as five issues were framed by the Sub-court. They are: (1) Because of the postponement of examination from April to October, 1985 and consequent delayed publication of results, whether the plaintiff has suffered damages? (2) Whether there was any irregularity in the correction of answer papers? (3) Whether there was delay in publication of result and the plaintiff was put to mental suffering? (4) Did the plain tiff suffer damages consequent to the delay and irregularities? (5) The quantum of compensation payable. After contested trial, where as many as 21 documents were filed on the side of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. 2. Without resorting to file an appeal as provided under Section 96 read with Order 41, C.P.C., petitioner has chosen...
Sennimalai Swamy Madam Trust, Palani by L. Manoharan Vs. Nil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC390
ORDER1 Petitioner in O.P.No.7 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindugul is the revision petitioner herein. 2. An application was filed under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 by petitioner for opinion, or advise or direction of the Court for sale of immovable properties belonging to the Trust. By the impugned order lower court dismissed the same on the ground that there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees and unless the same is filled up, it will not consider the request for giving opinion. The application was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order of lower court is based on misunderstanding of law. Merely because there is vacancy in the Board of Trustees that will not debar a trustee from gettingopinion. Counsel further submitted that he being a hereditory trustee, he is entitled to move under section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 and the Court cannot dismiss the same for reasons st...
K.K. Palaniappan Vs. P.S.K. Subramaniam and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC404
ORDER1. Third defendant in O.S.No. 384 of 1992 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode is the appellant herein.2. First defendant in the suit is a Firm of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners. First defendant is a registered partnership firm. Plaintiff alleged that on behalf of the firm, defendants 2 and 3 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000 from plaintiff on 9.3.1989 agreeing to return the same within 15 days. A post-dated cheque dated 24.3.1989 was also handed over to plaintiff evidencing the transaction. On 27.3.1989, plaintiff presented the cheque into the bank. But the same was returned due to want of funds. Immediately plaintiff informed defendant about the dishonoured cheque and second defendant representing the firm wrote a letter to plaintiff that he will settle the transaction on or before 26.7.1989 and evidencing the same, letter was also written on 27.4.1989. Immediately after expiry of the promised date, plaintiff again presented the cheque into the bank on 28.7.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »