Chennai Court April 2000 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC425
ORDER1. Since suits, appeals were disposed of by a common judgment the present second appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. In both the appeals the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Assistant Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Tahsildar, Paramakudi are the appellants. Respondent in both the appeals are brother and sister. Brother viz., Durairaj has filed O.S.No.63 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to issue a community certificate in the revised format on the basis of the community certificate already issued in favour of the plaintiff on 1.2.1980. His sister viz., Guruvammal has filed suit in O.S.No.60 of 1991 on the file of the same Court for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from initiating any enquiry including the enquiry contemplated in Roc.No.A3/269/90 regarding the issuance of a community certificate in her favour....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Chit Funds (Sattur Private Limited), Satur Having Its Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC524; (2000)IIMLJ441
ORDER1. Aggreived by the orders in E.A.No.38 of 1999 in E.P.No.87 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, which was confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur in C.M.A.No.34 of 1999, the appellant has filed the above second appeal before this Court.2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder: The appellant Sri Krishna Chit Funds purchased the suit property in dispute from the 2nd respondent herein for valuable consideration on 24.12.97. They were put in possession and enjoyment of the said property even on the date of sale. The appellant is continuing in possession of the suit property, it is stated that the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1997 against the 2nd respondent, herein and obtained attachment before judgment of the-said-property belonging to the 2nd respondent. The appellant was not aware of the said attachment before judgment. The appellant as a bona fide purchaser made enquiries and perused en...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Reddiar Vs. Vasantha Ammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC200
ORDER1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 1979 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam for partition of half share in item nos. 1 and 2 and for recovery of possession in respect of item nos.3 to 5 of the suit properties. It was the case of the plaintiff that item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties owned by one Krishnsamy Naidu and the same were his self acquired properties. Thiru.Krishnasamy Naidu died on 1.2.1957 intestate. After his demise his son Devaraj and daughter Ramanujam Ammal partitioned orally the item nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties equally. From then onwards both Devaraj and Ramanujam Ammal were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares without any interruption. On 14.10.1971, Ramunjam Ammal sold her share of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,000 through a registered sale deed marked as Ex.A-1. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Gurukkal and Another Vs. State Bank of India (Adb) Karuvepp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas899(Mad); 2000(3)CTC630
ORDER1. These second appeals have been preferred by the defendants in the suit challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub judge, Vridhachalam in A.S.No.40 of 1984 and in A.S.No.46 of 1984 allowing theappeals filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein. The plaintiff/respondent in the second appeals filed two suits in O.S.No.1345 of 1982 and O.S.No.1346 of 21982 before the learned District Munsif, Vridhachalam for recovery of a sum of Rs 11,720. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant obtained a sum of Rs 11,720 from the plaintiff-bank towards agricultural loan for the period 1976-1977 and executed two promissory notes for a sum of Rs.5,600 each on 28.5.76 to and in favour of the second defendant who in turn transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff-bank. On the same day both the defendant have also jointly executed a standing crop hypothecation agreement. The said promissory note were renewed jointly by both the defendants on 16.2.79. However, on 12.2.82, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivanupandi thevar and Five Others Vs. State by Munnerpallam Police St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC603
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1.The above criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court of Tirunelveli in S.C.No.237 of 1988 dated 16.8.1989 whereby the third accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC read with 109, IPC and sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for life.2. The fourth accused and fifth accused are found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and further each of them found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.3. The sixth accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to unde...
Tag this Judgment!Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbcid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3695
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner in the above criminal original petitions is the first accused (Al) in C.C. No. 15 of 1997 before the learned XIIth Additional City Civil Judge and Special Judge, Chennai, and is facing trial for an alleged offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act').2. Admittedly, the respondent filed a report under Section 173(8), Cr. P.C. on 24-10-1997; charges were framed against the accused on 14-5-1998; P.W. 1 was examined on 28-12-1998; thereafter 80 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution was closed on 2-3-2000.3. Except the petitioner herein, all the other accused were examined on 8-3-2000 and the petitioner (Al) was examined on 23-2-2000, under Section 313, Cr. P.C, and thereafter, the case was adjourned on 29-3-2000 for the examination of defence witnesses.4. Admittedly, all the witnesses of the prosecution were cross-examined by the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR19(Mad)
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above two writ petitions praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings dated September 12, 1992, in D. 810 of 1991 GIR 18 N of 1987-88, D. 811 of 1991 and GIR 18 N of 1987-88 respectively, and to quash the same.2. In the affidavits filed in support of both the above writ petitions which are nothing but the same for all purposes, the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), that for the assessment year 1987-88 pertaining to the accounting year April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987, the petitioner was subjected to final assessment and the order which was passed under Section 17(3) of the Act by the first respondent on the income received from rubber amounting to Rs. 1,16,50,391. While so, the first respondent by notice dated September 12, 1992, purporting to b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran M. Vs. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1015Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Board of Directors of Cheran Transport Corporation made in its proceedings No. 6177/MD/Law/CTC/88 dated August 10, 1992 confirming the order of Managing Director, the second respondent herein, made in his proceeding No. 6177/Law/CTC/88 dated March 30, 1990 and quash the order of the first respondent and pass such further or other orders. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was originally employed at Anamalai Bus Transport, Pollachi for about 20 years and thereafter he worked as the Deputy Manager in the Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore for more than 16 years rendering unblemished service, that while so, based on a charge sheet the Managing Director, Cheran Transport Corporation issued a show cause notice dated March 28, 1989 stating that he had indulged in malpractices joining hands w...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Dr. Syed LatheefuddIn Shah (Died) and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad412; (2000)IIMLJ728
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J. 1. The writ petition is one for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to item No. 9/90 RC-629/C1/83-CGT dated 8-1-1992 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the second respondent from interfering with the petitioner, Muthavalli of private Wakf of Syed Badurddin Saheed Durgah. Pallavaram in Chingleput District.2. By the impugned proceedings the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board has decided that pending the appointment of suitable officer as a Special Officer, a team of Board Officials including the Superintendent of Wakfs, Northern Zone, Wakf Inspector, Chengalpattu (East) shall be deputed to the petition Wakf to assume the management by such officer as is designated by the Secretary within 48 hours of this order etc. and it has also been stated in the impugned proceedings that the Special Officer shall prepare a voters' list of the Muslim Male members of 21 years of age and above for purposes of holdi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayakumaran Vs. the District Collector District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5008
R. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Petitioner's brother is detained as a goonda by detention order dated 22-5-1999 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Mr. Jagadish Chandra, learned counsel mainly advanced only one point before us in challenging the order of detention and that is as follows :On 11-6-1999 the detenu gave a representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison, where he was confined, to be forward to the Government. The jail authority refused to receive the same since it was in Malayalam language and he insisted that unless the representation is given in Tamil language it shall not be forwarded. Ultimately, according to him, lawyer's notice dated 17-6-1999 was issued to the jail authority as well as to the concerned Secretary to the Government. In that notice it is stated that on 11-6-1999 the jail authority refused to receive the representation given by the detenu in Malayalam. The notice also contains a further statement that a copy of the refused representation is again sen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »