Chennai Court March 2000 Judgments
M.K. Narayanan and 2 Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC230
ORDER1. The parties and the issue in the writ petition and the second appeal are one and the same, accordingly they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.4.1976. as well as the order of the second respondent in its proceedings in U.L.T.A.No. 125 of 1976 dated 6.4.1977 the petitioners have filed the above writ petition for quashing both the orders. The very same petitioners filed O.S.No.383 of 1984 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to effect separate/individual assessment in respect of urban land tax. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue in question. The plaintiffs filed appeal A.S.No.1 of 1989 before the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. The lower appellate court confirmed the conclusion of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, against which the unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed second ...
Tag this Judgment!Virudambal and 4 Others Vs. Kandasamy and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC263; (2000)IIMLJ287
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, directing the plaintiffs to pay court-fees under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), they preferred the present revision before this court. Petitioners 2 to 4 herein are daughters of the first petitioner. 5th petitioner is the grand-daughter of the first petitioner. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 11/18th share in the suit properties which are described in Schedule A to C. The suit came to be filed on account of the fact that after the death of the husband of the first petitioner, namely, Ramalingam, the first respondentherein who is the son through the second wife Logambal did not make any arrangement for partition of the properties of her deceased husband. The said Ramalingam died on 9.2.97, and according to the petitioners who are his Class-1 heirs have filed the suit seeking partition and separate po...
Tag this Judgment!Annathai Vs. Murugaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad356; 2000(2)CTC698; I(2001)DMC104; (2000)IIMLJ294
ORDER1. Petitioner in H.M.O.P.No. 64 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi is the appellant. She filed the said petition before the sub Court under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 27.7.83 according to Hindu rites and customs and she gave birth to a child on 13.10.83, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent-husband filed appeal in District Court. Tirunelveli. The lower appellate court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal, against which the wife has filed the present second appeal before this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100, C.P.C.2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated, hereunder:- According to her, she is the wife of the respondent herein. Both of them belong to Kulasekaramangalam village. S...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad414
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff briefly is as follows : The plaintiff is a trust known as Sri Swami Mela Arasalwar Trust at Shencottah. It has been in existence from time immemorial. The trust is situate at Shencottah which was formerly a part of the state of Travancore, The trust was established by savings out of grant made by one of the Maharajas of Travancore to a sect of brahmins who by virtue of the said grant became settled in the three streets in Shencottah now called Perumal Sannadhi Street, Arasalvar street and Vadakku Madam street. The trust which is founded by savings out of the grant to the brahmin communities who formed a sect by themselves was managed by the brahmins themselves by agreerment among themselves originally. In 1936, there were about 38 members in the three gramams/streets who were in the management of the trust and its properties and used to administer the trust through a general body of the said members wherein r...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jeeva Vs. Sree Sevugan Annamalai College and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad437
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent pursuant to the order dt. 25-10-1999, quash the said order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue B.Com. course in the first respondent-College.2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows :The petitioner is a student of the IIIrd year B.Com. class in the first respondent-College. He belongs to the backward class. A group of students used to constantly tease the students belonging the petitioner's community. The petitioner brought this situation to the notice of the Principal and requested him to take stern action against the said students. The Principal, Instead of taking action against those students, sided with them and threatened action against the petitioner. The Principal did not stop with that, he gave a complaint to the police against the petitioner making untrue allegations, that the petitioner had used abusive language and purp...
Tag this Judgment!G.A. Mohamed Moideen Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4355; I(2001)DMC700
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below against both the revision petitioners under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge against the revision petitioners/accused is that the deceased, the daughter of P.W. 1, was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment and that unable to bear the harassment, she committed suicide. The first accused is the son of the second accused and husband of the deceased.2. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. PI to P8 and M.Os. 1 to 11.3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :The first accused married the deceased Megarun Begum about one and half years prior to the date of the incident. A male child was born to them out of lawful wedlock. At the time of the marriage, 32 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs. 10,000/- were given. P.W. 1 gave the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the second accused. Thereafter, the deceased and first ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Alias Welding Kumar and ors. Etc. Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4270
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. C.A. No. 49/98 is pre-furred by accused 1 and 2 and C.A. No. 317/ 98 is preferred by the third accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No. 340/96.2. The charges against the accused are as follows :-On 29-1-93 at about 11.55 a.m., the accused and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the premises of the XIV Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court and that they were in possession of deadly weapons and that they are liable to be punished under Section 148, I.P.C. The second charge against the accused is that in the same transaction, when P.W. 1 and one Manoharan were standing in the varandah of the Court, the accused and others restrained them and that therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 341, I.P.C. 3. The third charge against the accused is that the first accused threatened P.W. 1 that he would do away with him and stabbed P.W. 1 and that when Mancharan attempted ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanniappan Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3105
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner's son is detained as a 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by detention order dt. 10-7-99. That order is successfully challenged before this Court in this writ petition on one ground and that is as follows:-While arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority had applied his mind to the offences registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 of the IPC in the ground case in Crime No. 857/ 99. There are two adverse cases noticed against the detenu. The first adverse case was on 20-8-98 for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and the second adverse case was on 4-6-99 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 ,307 and 302 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in stating that the detaining authority had not applied his mind, while he arrived at the subjective satisfaction on th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramanathan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Collector of Tha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC458
ORDER1. The above appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.76 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tanjavur dismissing the relief prayed for by the appellants therein.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants.3. The case of the appellant as discussed in the plaint averments are briefly stated as follows:-The appellant-plaintiff was the successful bidder for the sale of arrack in retail through arrack shop number 4, Thanjavur Taluk for the excise year 1983-84. The salient features of the tease are viz., that the monthly rental payable by the plaintiff-lessee to the defendant-lessor shall be Rs.96,000, that the plaintiff shall deposit with the lessor three months rental amount and that the lease shall be with reference to the arrack shop No.4 to be situated in Adakara Street, Tanjavur Town and municipal limits. After deposit, the three months rental, at the rate of Rs.96, 000 per mensem in July 1983 with the defendant-lessor, the plaintiff commenc...
Tag this Judgment!Shenbagam Garden Hig House Allottess Association Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC146
ORDER1. The petitioner association has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent Board not to insist the payment in excess of Rs.2,95,000 as originally fixed and determined with reference to the members of the petitioner association for the allotment of HIG houses in Aringnar Anna Nagar, Madurai.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner association would submit that the second respondent Board is a Corporate Body constituted under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, (Act 1708 of 1961), that the Board was constituted for the purpose of effecting improvement schemes, acquiring lands, erecting buildings thereon and selling them to persons who do not have any houses that in pursuance of a scheme known as Shenbagam Garden HIG House scheme at Madurai, the Board had put up 17 HIG houses and called for application in 1987 for the allotment of the said houses through advertisement circulated by the Executive Engine...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »