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.
B. Chellammal and anr. Vs. J.C. Automobile and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC398; 2001ACJ1626
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The claimants, widow and daughter of the deceased, challenging the award of Rs. 48,000, as against the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 claimed for the death of the deceased, due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent No. 1, insured with the respondent No. 2, have presented this appeal, seeking for the enhancement of the compensation.2. I heard Mr. Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants, Mr. C.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Sivasankaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.3. The deceased, in this case, was working as Headmaster of a school. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 3.2.1985, he was travelling in the ill-fated bus, belonging to the respondent No. 1, in order to attend his school. The driver of the said bus drove the bus rashly and negligently in the Ghat Road above Sitharevu Hills. At the second hairpin bend also the driver drove t...
Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Sridhar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ732; (2000)1MLJ72
P. Thangavel, J. 1. These are all appeals against the order dated 21.8.1991 in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 1 of 1988 on the file of the II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal).2. The facts that are necessary for deciding the appeals under consideration before this court are as follows:The petitioner, who was mason by profession was riding in his cycle from north to south on the left side of Johny John Khan Road. The driver of the tractor bearing registration No. TNO 7229, and trailer bearing registration No. TCX 1638 was driving rashly and negligently from south to north suddenly overtaking the van bearing registration No. MDA 8561 and dashed against the petitioner and caused the crushing injury to the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was hospitalised has undergone surgery and his right leg was amputated. The respondent No. 1 as owner of the vehicle, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as insurers of the vehicle and respondent No. 4, who was in actual contro...
R.M.V. Karuppiah Ambalam Vs. Sr. Govinda Iyer and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC129
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Section 114 -- Order 47, Rule 1Judgment Pronounced by A. Raman, J.1. This application is filed to review the order passed by this Court, in C.R.P.No.1283 of 1995. C.M.P. No. 6380 of 1999 is for stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition. 2. A Receiver was appointed by the Sub-Court, Devakkottai, for the administration and management of the Estate of the kottaiyur Nattars, situate within Kottaiyur and Sekkala Kottai village limits. The said estate has extensive properties. The total extent of properties more than 1800 acres. Apreliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.72/33 for partition and allotment of property to each of the 5/72 sharers. Thiru Govinda Iyer Advocate was appointed as the receiver prior to 1945, when Dr. Azhagappa Chettiar College was founded, the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired extensive area for the said college and in that process an extent of 252 acres of land, belonging...
Swarna Paper Cutting Works, rep. by It's proprietor Mr. S. Paulpandian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC167
ORDER1. The defendants and the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2859 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional City Civil Judge at Madras are the appellants and the respondent respectively in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 68,993.22 together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 65,551.74 from 1.12.1981 till the date of payment and for costs. The defendants contested the suit and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 62,133.52 with interest at 18% per annum from 1.12.1981 till date of realisation with proportionate costs. It is the correctness of that judgment that is being questioned in this appeal before this Court by the defendants. 2. The brief facts on which the plaintiff went before the lower court seeking the decree are as follows: One of the incidents of the business of the plaintiff ...
T.S. Subramania Aiyer Vs. P.K. Srinivasan by Power Agent, B. Ramu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ391
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 24 of 1992, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam, is the revision petitioner.2. Landlord sought eviction of tenant/revision petitioner on three grounds, namely, (1) Default in payment of rent from 1.4.1991 to 31.10.1992, i.e., for a period of 18 months at the rate of Rs. 70 per month. According to the landlord, the said default is wilful. (2) The building in question is required bona fide for own use and occupation of the landlord; and (3) The building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.3. As per Ex.A-13, a notice dated 25.8.1992 was served on the tenant in terming him that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. For this, Ex.A-14 reply dated 1.9.1992 was sent. It is further averred that in spite of the notice, tenant did not pay the rent. It is said that the landlord's son is serving Army and he is due for retirement from service, and the building is very much needed for the landlord's f...
G.T. Karuppaiyan Vs. Jeyapal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC63
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Rs. 37,500/- payable to the claimant, by the appellant, the owner of the vehicle.2. The only question urged by the Counsel for the appellant is that when the driver was having the valid Driving Licence to drive the vehicle in question, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle in question was insured, to pay the amount instead of directing the appellant, the owner of the vehicle, to pay the compensation merely on the ground that the valid licence was obtained by the driver of the vehicle, only subsequent to the date of the accident.3. Heard the Counsels for the appellant and the second respondent.4. In this appeal, there is no dispute with reference to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, on whose negligence the accident took place and due to the said accident, the victim sustained injuries.5. According to the Insurance Company, the driver was having a driv...
Kannappan Vs. Pargunan and 9 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC219
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.406 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu is the appellant. 2. Material, averments in the case could be summarised thus : One Thulikkanam had four sons by name Chinnaikuzhanthai alias Chakkarai, Murugan, Veerabathran and Chinnappan. Chinnakuzhanthai had four daughters by name Kuppammal, Chinnakannammal, Theivanai and Vembuliammal. Theivanai and Vembuliammal are alive but they are dumb. Thendavarayan was the only son of Chakkarai and his wife was one Lakshmi. They had no issues. Plaintiff is the son of Chinnakannammal. One of the sons of Thulikkanam by name Veerabathran had four sons by name, Gopal, Arunachalam, Balaraman and Nagooran. Arunachalam is the first defendant and Balaraman and Nagooran are defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. Son of Nagooran is the 7th defendant. Arunachalam's legal heirs are defendants 2 to 4 and 8 to 11 in the suit. 3. According to plaintiff, he has obtained title to the property on the basis of Ex.A1 executed by ...
M. Arunachalam Vs. V. Rajaram Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC316
ORDER1. There was one suit namely, O.S.No. 9 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court at Cuddalore. That suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 96,820 made up of Rs. 49,995 towards principal and the balance sum towards interest. The suit was decreed on merits by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 18.10.1985. Under the decree the plaintiff gets a sum of Rs. 46,060 only together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. thereon as against the claim made by him in the plaint. Aggrieved over that portion of the claim in respect of which the plaintiff was non-suited, the plaintiff is before this Court in A.S.No. 108 of 1986, to which the defendant in that suit is the respondent. Aggrieved over that portion of the decree which was passed against the defendant, the defendant is before this court in A.S.No. 858 of 1986 as the appellant therein and the plaintiff in that suit is the respondent in this appeal. It is the correctness of the judgment referred to above in the original suit, that is bei...
Management of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ793Mad
P. Thangavel, J.1. These are all appeals against order dated April 30, 1991, on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court (District Court), Salem, in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 14 of 1987 and 16 of 1989 filed against the order, dated January 29, 1987, in TN/INS/IX 51.5613-11 and order, dated February 17, 1989, in TN/INS./IX/ 51.5613-11 on the file of the Regional Office (Tamil Nadu) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras 34, respectively.2. The petitioner in both the petitions is textile mill engaged in manufacture of yarn, etc., with workmen numbering about 800 which includes permanent and temporary employees, apart from apprentices, badlis, etc. The petitioner mill is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The management of the petitioner's company was remitting both the employees' and employer's contributions regularly in respect ofemployees, who are all covered under the Act. The respondents issued a notice, date...
Periyasamy R. Vs. General Manager (Operations), State Bank of India an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1408Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent, dated July 31, 1987, as well as the second respondent, dated May 16, 1990 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him he was a head cashier of the State Bank of India at Dharmapuri in the year 1986. While he was returning home on April 5, 1986, he was involved in a road accident and he was hospitalised till May and also he was under treatment for three months thereafter. His belongings including office and strong room keys were obtained by the Branch Manager on the same night and one Swaminathan took charge of the affairs of the bank. He functioned from April 7, 1986 to April 9, 1986 and again from April 12, 1986 and April 17, 1986 and later one Krishnan functioned on April 10, 1986 and April 11, 1986. Being cashier post, his successors in office took charge after verification. While so, on April 15 and 16 1986, cash sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »