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.
D.V. Jaganathan and Five Others Vs. P.R. Srinivasan and Five Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC263
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in A.S.No. 286 of 1992 confirming the judgment of the learned 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S.No. 6458 of 1986. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.2. The plaintiffs prayed for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs, for past mesne profits from January, 1986 to June, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem and for future mesne profits at the same rate.3. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is the son of one C. Rajagopalachari who died in November, 1941 leaving behind him his widow Thangammal, his son the first defendant and four daughters, the defendants 2 to 4 and the mother of the plaintiffs 2 to 6. The said Rajagopalachari out of his own self earnings purchased the suit property and constructed a house and he had also...
Thirumalai and anr. Vs. Goniathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ590
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 243 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti, are the appellants. Plaintiff is first respondent.2. Reference to parties, in this judgment will be according to their rank in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, and for a consequential injunction against the defendants. The property originally belonged to one Shanmugham Chettiar who executed Ex.A-1 gift deed to in favour of plaintiff on 23.8.1939 corresponding to 12.5.1115 (Tamil era). Plaintiff is the wife of third defendant Gurusamy Chettiar (2nd respondent herein) and Ex.A-1 gift deed was executed pursuant to the assurance which the third defendant's father had made before their marriage. It is the further case of plaintiff that ever since the date of the gift, she is the absolute owner, and none of the defendants has any right over the same. The reason for filing the suit is that the fa...
Gnanaprakasam Vs. Smitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ778
S.S. Subramani, J.1. In both the above second appeals, plaintiff in the respective suits are the appellants. O.S. No. 251 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A. No. 1772 of 1998. O.S. No. 227 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A. No. 136 of 1999. Both the suits were filed in District Munsif's Court, Padmanabhapuram.2. Material averments of the case may be summarised thus:Under Exs.A-1 to A-4, plaintiff, in O.S. No. 251 of 1996 purchased the plaint schedule property having an extent of 8 acres and 80 cents in Survey Nos. 113/2 and 115/2 of Thirparappu Village, Kalkulam Taluk. Those documents were executed by none other than the defendants in that suit. All these properties originally belonged to one George and Soosammal George, and they sold the property to one Sankaran, first defendant in that suit. Sankaran executed Exs.A-1 to A-4 in favour of plaintiffs who claim to be in possession of the plaint schedule property. The reason for filing the suit was, there is no separating b...
Pillathal and ors. Vs. R.S. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC265
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Pillathal, the widow and two minor children of the deceased, the claimants are the appellant herein.2. For the death of the deceased Vellaichamy, due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent herein, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which resulted in the present appeal before this Court.4. Vellaichamy, the deceased in this case was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. He was working in Central Government as a Mail Man, R.M.S., M.A. Division Madurai. Pillathal, the first claimant is his wife and Selvapandian and Kavitha are his son and daughter respectively. They were residents of Manalur, Thirupuvanam Taluk.5. On 3/4.6.1982 in mid-night at about 2.00 a.m., the deceased Vellaichamy was riding on his bicycle alongwith one Mahalingam, who was sitting in the carrier, from Thirupuvanam to Manalur. At that time, the lorry bearing Regi...
Karuppayammal and Another Vs. S. Ramaalingam Pillai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC39
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.64 of 1985, confirming the judgment of thelearned District Munsif, Palani, in O.S.No.547 of 1981. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. As the decision in the second appeal revolves around the competence of the court to pass a decree in favour of a defendant as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6, 6-A to 6-G, C.P.C., it is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties or the findings of the courts below in detail.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits by impleading defendants 1 and 2 who were described as trespassers. The third defendant filed an application seeking to be impleaded as defendant. After the plaintiff filed the objections, the application was allowed and he was added as third defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant had no right, title or interest over the...
M/S. the Calcutta Chemicals and Limited Vs. Taiyeb Yusufbhai Vakharia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC202
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties, the civil revision petition itself has been taken up for disposal. 2. The respondents in the civil revision petition filed an application before the Rent Control Court, in R.C.O.P.NO. 2954 of 1994. Under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for determining the fair rent of the building and to fix it at Rs. 25,482.50, The application was opposed by the tenant/respondent. The XVI Judge of the Small Causes Court, who held the enquiry, determined the fair rent payable for the building at Rs.l1,396 per month and passed an order accordingly, directing the tenant/respondent to pay the rent at Rs. 11,396 per month, from 5.12.1993 onwards. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 1313 of 1996 to the appellate authority while the landlord also preferred on appeal in 1325 of 1996. The appellate authority, by common order dated 25.6.1998, in RCA. Nos. 1313 of 1996 and ...
M. Chockalingam Vs. Sundaram Finance Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ137
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 2929/98 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the said proceedings.2. The respondent M/s. Sundaram Finance Service Ltd. Chennai 14, represented by its Executive S. Suresh, has filed a complaint Under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that in the usual course of the complainant's business, the 1st accused availed bill discounting facility from the complainant for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000 as per bill discounting agreement dt. 19-3-1993 against invoices dated 3-2-97 and 4-2-97. The accused towards the said loan, issued a cheque bearing No. 243249 dt. 27-12-97 for Rs. 22,50,000 drawn on Indian Bank, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai 18. The cheque was presented for payment by the complainant on 27-12-97 in State Bank of Travancore, Mount Road, Chennai 2, and the same was returned on 30-12-1997 with an endorsement 'funds insu...
Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Namakkal Vs. Latha and Five Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC626
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Namakkal in M.C.O.P.N0.246 of 1988. The Insurance Company, 4th respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as regards the liability of the insurance company in the context of the date and time from which the policy will become enforceable. The admitted facts of the case are that the accident occurred at 3.10 p.m. on 9.6.1998 but the policy was issued with effect from 5 p.m on 9.6.98.3. According to the owner of the vehicle, the premium amount was paid in the forenoon itself at 10.a.m, but the policy was issued at 5.00p.m.. The Tribunal accepted the evidence adduced on the side of the owner of the vehicleand also relying on the judgment of this court reported in 1992 LW 493, the Tribunal held that when the date is mentioned in the policy, it would be operative from the commencement of that part...
S. Maheswaran and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1905
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (Legal) and the four accused in C.C. No. 352 of 1999 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Madurai have filed these two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against these four accused.2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the petitions is as follows :On 23-12-98 on the basis of intelligence gathered and recorded, the four accused and other officers were directed by the Senior Officers to conduct raid on the factory premises of M/s. Sri Ram Agencies, Madurai and other connected premises thereto, which included the residential as well as business premises. During the said searches, number of documents and materials were also recovered. In the course of such searches, Sri Madan Mohan Mohanti, and D. Thillairaj were also present in the respective places of search. M/s. Sri Ram Agencies are the manufacturers of brass sheets and circles. They registere...
S. Maheswaran Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT560(Mad)
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (Legal) and the four accused in C.C. No. 352 of 1999 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Madurai have filed these two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against these four accused.2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the petitions in as follows:On 23-12-1998 on the basis of intelligence gathered and recorded, the four accused and other officers were directed by the Senior Officers to conduct raid on the factory premises of M/s. Sri Ram Agencies, Madurai and other connected premises thereto, which included the residential as well as business premises. During the said searches, number of documents and materials were also recovered. In the course of such searches, Sri Madan Mohan Mohanty, and D. Thillairaj were also present in the respective places of search. M/s. Sri Ram Agencies are the manufacturers of brass sheets and circles. They register...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »