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.
Rajamani Vs. Meenakshisundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC309; (1999)3MLJ757
ORDER1. The defendant who suffered a decree before the Court below has filed the above second appeal. 2. The appellant/defendant borrowed 2000 Singapore dollars from oneR.S. Sundaram at Singapore on 9.11.1975 promising to repay the same ondemand to him or to his order with interest at 18% per annum and executed apromissory note therefor under Ex.A5. The said Sundaram filed a case beforethe District and Magistrate Court, Singapore against the defendant but it wasstruck off. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant continues toreside in Singapore and on 3.7.1979, under Ex.A1 the said promissory notewas assigned in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff issued a notice on11.7.1979 intimating the said assignment in his favour and demanding the payment of the entire dues to him, from the defendant. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 8 of 1980 on the file of theSub-Court, Devakottai, which was re-transferred to the District Munsif Court,Dev...
Ayyavu (Died) and 8 Others Vs. Shanti Bibi and 9 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC400
ORDER1. The first appellant filed the suit in O.S.No. 687 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, for declaration and for permanent injunction against one Ghouse Mohideen Sahib, who died pending the suit whose legal representatives are appellants 2 to 5 in S.A.No.209 of 1988, and against Bhavani Municipality. 2. According to the 1st appellant, the suit property was owned by his father and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 25 years and thereafter he became entitled 10 the same. The 1st defendant-municipality had recognised the 1st appellant/plaintiff as the owner of the suit property and assessed property tax in his name and so the said Ghouse Mohideen Sahib 2nd defendant has no right or title or interest in the suit property, but he attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 3. The said Ghouse Mohideen along with one P.K. Babu filed the suit in O.S.No. 301 of 1983 on the same Court for declaration, delive...
G. Kannan and Another Vs. Kulikambai Alias Saroja and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC719; (2000)1MLJ368
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S. No.327 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam are the appellants.2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession. It is the case ofplaintiff that the property belongs to Chokkapuram Mutt and it was in the possession of one Chellapillai. As per Ex.A3, he sold the property to one Arumuga Mudaliar and Meenakshisundaram Mudaliar. Both of them executed another sale deed on 16.2.1953 as per Ex.A2 to one Govindaraja Pillai, who in turn sold the property to plaintiff under Ex.A1 dated 22.2.1960. Eversince that date, plaintiff is in possession of the property.3. Eversince the date of purchase, plaintiff us paying dues to Chokkapura Adhinam. Eventhough he has sold 25 cents to in Shanbagavalli, entire property is included in the schedule. Reason for filing the suit was that defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession.4. In the written statement filed by def...
The Secretary School Committee Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC62
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No. 418 Education dated 24.4.1991 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and also for direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to grant approval for the termination of the services of the fifth respondent as P.G. Teacher from the services of the petitioner School. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: Petitioner is a Higher Secondary School one of the oldest and biggest Schools in the State. 5th respondent herein was directly recruited as P.G. Assistant for English in the year 1978. The performance of the 5th respondent was not satisfactory and he was highly irregular both in his attendance and in his teaching in the school. He used to leave the school in the middle, cancel the classes and ultimately he stopped attending the School from 1.12.1984 without prior permission. He has not chosen to intimate or applied for leave for his long absence. The students were put to loss. The ...
Kumaravel R. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ179Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This Court ordered notice of motion on July 6, 1998. The respondents have been served. The second respondent entered/ appearance through Sri Vijay Narayan, who had also filed counter-affidavit.2. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the award, dated October 14, 1997, made in I.D.No. 416 of 1995 on the file of the second respondent Labour Court and consequently direct the first respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service as time-keeper and ticket canvasser at Dindigul bus stand with all monetary and service benefits.3. The petitioner claiming that he was working as 'time-keeper and ticket canvasser' under the first respondent-Corporation since 1987 at Dindigul Bus Stand and claiming that he was paid Rs. 1.50 per bus for 10 buses per day raised an industrial dispute as according to the petitioner his approach to the first respondent for regularisation of his service was not accepted and to his sho...
Sri Kanchi Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Cce
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC59; 2000(115)ELT305(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein dated 3-5-1999, declaring that the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, on the ground that the petitioner has not paid 50 per cent of the disputed amount on or before the last date, i.e. 13-3-1999.2. The admitted facts are that, the petitioner has received the order (Form-2B, dated 3-2-1999) on 11-2-1999. The last date for payment of 50 per cent of the disputed amount is 13-3-1999. The petitioner paid cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 13-3-1999. On the same day, he also paid Rs. 3,36,598/- by way of cheque and the cheque was received by the respondent and sent the same for realisation, which got realised on 16-3-1999.3. Now the contention of the respondent is that since Rs. 3,36,598/- was remitted only on 16-3-1999 and not 13-3-1999, being the last date for payment of the disputed amount, the petitioner is not entit...
A. Maniyara Manickam Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ384
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to participate in the interview and selection process conducted in pursuance of the communication No. 13761/Niya-11/Ma.G.II/97, dated 1.9.1997 issued by the respondent including practical test or driving the vehicle holding that the petitioner is holding a valid licence to drive a Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle as per the endorsement No. 396/87, dated 12.11.1987 made in his Driving Licence Book bearing serial Number 674/83 and eligible to participate in the interview conducted by the respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that with a view to obtain a light motor vehicle licence, he applied for the same after obtaining learner's licence through a driving school. The driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was issued to the petitioner on 16.4.1983 by the Assistant Licencing Authority, Tuticorin. His driving licence No. is 674/83. The peti...
Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Vs. Minor Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC350
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. The injured in this case is one Mujuby Rahman @ Ochip Rahim, a minor aged about 12 years. He was an ice vendor residing in Ariyanattu Street at Velankanni with his parents. On 18.4.1990 at about 7.30 a.m. he was going on a cycle to ice factory situated near hospital. When he was reaching Mada Theatre on Velankanni Main Road, the bus bearing Registration No. TML 8683 belonged to the appellant Corporation was coming from West to East in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. On seeing the speed, the minor boy got down from his cycle and was walking with his cycle on the left side mud portion of the road. However, the said bus dashed against the boy and cycle.3. Due to the impact, the cycle got completely damaged and the minor boy sustained multiple grievous injuries. The driver of the bus without stopping the bus sped away. The minor boy was taken to Nagapattinam hospital where he was treate...
Pharmasivam and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC537
ORDER1. Plaintiffs In O.S.No.1360 of 1989 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District are the appellants. Suit filed by them was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants from erecting a transformer in front of the suit property (Door No.168, Sathy Road) having its rear portion facing Nehru Street and for consequential reliefs. It is stated in the plaint that the schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs as per family partition deed dated 1.7.1987. In the property there is a non-residential building. It is having its frontage facing Sathy Road, which runs east to west. On the immediate east of the property a North South road runs and its is called Nehru Street. The suit property has got its rear portion facing Nehru Street and it forms one block. The width ofNehru Street is about 50 feet. There is also a zinc steel roof structure in the property. It is alleged that after shifting the bus stand to Sathy R...
Veppanathar Alias Karuppannan and Another Vs. Kaliappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC78
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S.No.549 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Namakkal are the revision petitioners.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he has got right of way to the scheduled property and for consequential injunction restraining defendants from interfering with that right. In the schedule plaintiff has given the description about the way through which he wants access to his property.3. Defendants seriously contested the claim of plaintiff by filing written statement.4. During trial, a Commissioner was deputed, who filed his report and plan on 20.11.1998. Plaintiff filed his objection to the report on 4.12.1998 and moved an application that since objection was filed belatedly, seeking permission of the Court to receive the same. He also filed an application as I.A.No.993 of 1999 to scrap the Commissioner's report for various reasons mentioned in the objection.5. A detailed counter was filed by petitions contending that there is no necessity to s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »