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.
ideal Agro Services a Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC486
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S.No. 135 of 1995, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, are the appellants. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount borrowed by defendants from plaintiff for their business purpose. First defendant is a firm in which defendants 2 to 4 are partners. Fifth defendant is a guarantor. They had executed necessary documents in favour of plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, on 15.11.1980, They have agreed to pay interest at 18% per annum. They have also hypothecated certain machineries. Thereafter, on 17.10.1983 and 16.11.1985, they have acknowledged their liability and renewed the debt. As on the date of suit, nearly, Rs. 95,000 was due with future interest. 3. Second defendant in his written statement contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he has not acknowledged theliability. The suit is also barred by limitation. Likewise, fifth defendant is also not liable and he has to be exonerated from his lia...
Base Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT27(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the fourth respondent or other respondents from forcing the petitioners to pay duty on the goods imported at Chennai under transferable licence without the issue of a show cause notice.2. Counter has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent wherein at page number 8, it is clearly stated as follows :-'The allegation made by the petitioner are false and baseless. The DRI has not made any demand of duty. The case is at investigation stage. After completion of the investigation and depending upon the outcome of the investigation, a proper show cause notice will be issued for demanding the duty.' 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issue of any show cause notice, the petitioners are being forced to pay duty.4. From the above statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it is clear that the authorities are not making any de...
A. Karuppiah Vs. B. Vaithianathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC741
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1995 made in A.S.No. 249 of 1989 by the single Judge of the appellate forum of this Court allowing the above appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1988 made in O.S.No. 4 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein praying 'for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant, who is the appellant before us. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court contending that on.7.4.1980 he purchased a building site and for the purpose of constructing the building, he entered into Ex.A.1 agreement deed dated 20.3.1995 with the appellant thereby agreeing, on certain terms and conditions, to construct a shop structure in an extent of 16' x 17' and to lease out the...
Review Applicant: Mrs. Farida Shaukath Vs. Unit Trust of India, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC736
ORDER1. The above review application is directed against the order dated 26.11.1998, made in W.P.No. 20884 of 1992, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed in the following terms:'The petitioner seeks for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to sell the property at 75, Poes Garden, Madras-86 to the petitioner.'It appears that the petitioner is the owner of Door No. 76 Poes Garden, Madras and the house at Door No. 75, Poes Garden, Madras- 86, is admittedly, owned by the first respondent, who invited sealed offers for disposing of the suit property, to which, the petitioner and the second respondent, made their offers. In spite of some negotiations between the first respondent and the second respondent in disposing the said property, the sale could not be finalised by the first respondent Not satisfied with the terms of negotiations or the result thereon, the petitioner has approached this Court for the above relief.I am of considered opinion that the petitioner is n...
Madras Fertilisers Limited (Officers Association) Vs. Management of Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ796Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-association herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of declaration declaring Clause 12(a) of the MFL Service Policy, dated March 8, 1985, as illegal and null and void and not binding on the members of the petitioner-association.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they nave narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow their writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, 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...
N. Lakshmanan Servai and ors. Vs. Duraipendi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC382; (2000)1MLJ54
K. Natarajan, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dated 19.2.1997 in A.S. No. 10 of 1986, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif in O.S. No. 262 of 1977, dated 3.1.1986.2. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging the family of the plaintiff is a prestigious family in Kunnankottai Nadu, spread over 22 villages mainly comprising Kallar community. Further, the family of the plaintiff continued as the Pattathu Ambalam for the 22 villages and the successor is either the son or the grandson of the family. In the days of Pandya Kings, the precedessor of the plaintiff has been appointed as the Pattathu Ambalam for Kunnankottai Nadu and the Pattathu Ambalam is the representative of the Kunnankottai Nattars and he was permitted to negotiate with the Jamindar of Sivaganga. He also has a right to inaugurate the car festival in the Shi...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT320(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. These writ petitions and W.M.P's. coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 22nd day of June, 1999, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 13-12-1991 and made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relevant to the aforesaid prayer comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N.S. Sivam, Advocate for the petitioner, in all the W.P's and W.M.P's and of Mr. R.M. Kannappa Rajendran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the W.P's and W.M.P's and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order :-In all these writ petitions, since the parties involved and also the subject matter are one and the same, all these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties c...
A. Kanikaparameswari and ors. Vs. N. Sundari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC459
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The claimants are the appellants herein. The first claimant is the widow, the second claimant is the daughter and the third claimant is the son of the deceased.2. For the death of deceased in the accident due to the negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, holding that the driver of the vehicle was negligent, awarded only Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, this appeal seeking for the enhancement of the compensation.3. P. Arjuna, aged about 48 years, was, at the time of accident, working as an Office Assistant in the Corporation of Madras. On 2.11.1987 at about 7.20 p.m., the deceased was riding on his bi-cycle from east to west along Greenways Road. While he was turning towards south at the junction of Durgabai Deshmukh Road, the autorickshaw bearing registration No. TME 6778 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respond...
P. Jayabaskar and 2 Others Vs. Saraswathi and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC334
ORDER1. Defendants 14 to 16 in O.S. No, 710 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners.2. First respondent herein filed the suit for partition claiming 8/5.6 shares and also for putting her in exclusive possession of the same, she also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 14 to 16, their men and agents from demolishing the suit property, and for directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit.3. In the body of plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff and first defendant are daughters of one Gurunatha Mudaliar, who died 35 years ago. Apart from plaintiff and first defendant, defendant 8 to 10. One Mariappan and one Duraisami are also the children of Gurunatha Mudaliar. Mariappan died and his widow is 2nd defendant, and defendants 3 to 7 are their children. The legal heirs of Duraisami are defendants 11 and 12. It is alleged that the property is the self-acquisition of plaintiff's father. On the date of death of Guru...
K. Muthu Vs. C. Chandrasekar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC761; 2001ACJ897; 2000(3)CTC21
ORDER1. K.Muthu, the claimant is the appellant herein. 2. Challenging the award exonerating the National Insurance Company, the second respondents herein, from the liability and holding that then owner of the vehicle, the first respondent herein, alone is liable to pay the compensation of Rs 12,500 for the injuries sustained by the claimant, as against the total claim of compensation of Rs 50,000, this appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. On 10.6.88 at about 7.30 P.M., the claimant Muthu was riding in his tri-cycle from south to north in Waltax Road on the Western side of the road. When he was going opposite to Padmanbha Theatre, the auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.TME.1231 came from behind with a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit and knocked down the claimant, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. He has a fracture in his right hand fore-arm. He took treatment in Government Hospital, Madras. 4. Hence, he filed a claim petition see...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »