Chennai Court August 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.
A. Balakrishnan Vs. R. Kanagavel Kamaraj and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC247; (1999)3MLJ679
ORDER1. 1st Defendant in O.S.No. 1287 of 1999, on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Plaintiff/1st respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from producing TV Film or Video film or regular movie in any language without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff in any manner and in any capacity whatsoever about late Kamaraj.3. In the plaint it is said that plaintiff is the grandson of perunthalaivar Kamaraj and legal heir also. During the last days of that great Leader, plaintiff was looking after him and was assisting him in his day-to-day affairs and personal matters, at Thirumalai Pillai Road House, T. Nagar, Chennai-17. Perunthalaivar Kamaraj was a bachelor and hence he adopted the plaintiff as his son. Plaintiff left his Medical College Studies and was helping Mr. Kamaraj. He also performed the last rites of that great Leader and also performed the death ceremony as per Hindu customs....
V.K. Thyagarajan Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas293(Mad); (2000)1MLJ47
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. The fifth defendant in O. S. No. 235 of 1988, on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Erode, is the revision petitioner.2. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of more than Rs. 64 lakhs from the defendants and out of their assets. An ex parte decree was passed on April 18, 1995. The same was sought to be set aside by filing an application as I. A. No. 809 of 1995. The same was seriously opposed by the first respondent on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to consider the application in view of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.3. By the impugned order, the lower court accepted the objection and held that it has no jurisdiction to try the petition and further directed transfer of the petition to the Tribunal at an early date. The same is challenged in this revision.4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order is patently incorrect in view of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›