Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
A.V. Arockiam and Etc. Vs. Arul Mary Alias Latchumi Devi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad435; (2002)2MLJ506
ORDERK.S. Sampath, J.1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not?2. As pointed out in Thelma Agnes Kershaw v. Archibald Cyril Kershaw, AIR 1930 Lah 916, in cases under the Divorce Act, the question of jurisdiction is of paramount importance and does not fall to be determined purely on allocation of the onus of proof. In these cases, it is the duty of the Court, apart from any objection that might have been taken by one or other of the parties, to enquire into and set out in the judgment, facts which show clearly that it possesses jurisdiction to pronounce a decree' for dissolution of marriage.3. Apart from the preamble, the sections relevant in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (now the Divorce Act) are Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 4. 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 45. We have also to advert ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt., Publi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR69(Mad)
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. The Writ Petition is for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by calling for the records of the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu in G.O. No.SR.I/366-5/2001 Public (SC Department) dated 19.4.2001 issued under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for the release of the detenu.2. The detention order is passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Act. On the materials placed before the State Government that the petitioner had indulged in smuggling of goods, the above order came to be passed. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are stated hereunder.3. The petitioner started a concern in the name and style of M/s. Majestic International some time in October, 2000. A Current Account was opened in the name of the concern on 20.10.2000 with the Bank of Baroda, S.I.E.T. Branch, Chennai-18. Petitioner took lease of the premi...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Karuppusami Vs. Saravana Devei @ Vasanthamani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ758
ORDER1. Seeking to set aside the order refusing to amend the plaint by dismissing the petition for amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court in this Civil Revision Petition.2. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, he filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Since the defendants 1 and 2 failed to vacate the house, which is one of the suit properties in spite of his request, he filed an application in I.A.No.574 of 1995 to amend the plaint so as to get the relief of mandatory injunction and possession of the said house with damages.3. According to the respondents/defendants, the said application was not maintainable, since the amendment sought for requesting for mandatory injunction would create a new cause of action, which is quite contradictory to the cause of action mentioned in the original plaint.4. Agreeing with the contention of the respondents/defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)27; 2002CriLJ2202
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. On 13.4.1990 mid night at 2.00 A.M., the victim girl Kalaiselvi P.W.1 aged about 19 years along with her sister P.W.2 aged about 12 years was proceeding towards home after attending the Thiruvizha function at Esakiamman temple. The accused 1 to 10 who came in three cycles waylaid them and forcibly kidnapped P.W.1 by putting in the cycle and took her to a place where a new construction was being done and made her to lie down on the sand portion of the new built up house and all of them committed gang rape. 2. All the 10 accused were facing trial in S.C.No.332 of 1991 in respect of the above accusation. After trial, all were convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(g) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each count and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. All the accused, i.e. A1 to A10 filed a common appeal before the appellate Court challenging the conviction and sentence in C.A.No.35 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!K. Manokaran Vs. A.U. Subbannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad340; (2002)1MLJ771
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Manokaran, the petitioner herein, is the judgment-debtor.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.159 of 1997 against the petitioner/defendant and obtained a money decree on 12.12.2000 for Rs.74,576-25. No appeal was filed by the petitioner/defendant against the said money decree. So, the respondent/ploaintiff filed a petition in E.P.No.45 of 2001 under Order 21 Rule 11(2) C.P.C. on 12.3.2001 praying for the arrest of the petitioner/judgment-debtor under Sections 51 and 55 C.P.C. for the execution of the said decree. The matter came up for final disposal on 3.7.2001. On that date, the petitioner/defendant as well his counsel was absent. Though the counsel entered appearance earlier, no counter was filed till then. Therefore, an order of arrest was passed in the said application on 3.7.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner/defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.4....
Tag this Judgment!N. Balaji Vs. Smt. L.M. Shanthi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ88
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The first respondent herein filed W.P.3842 of 2001 praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 herein from in any manner awarding dealership of the retail outlet at Vellode Village, Erode District in favour of the appellant herein by issuing a letter of intent or letter of appointment and further directing the respondents 2 to 5 herein to consider the first respondent herein for appointment as dealer of the said retail outlet.2. W.P.11783 of 2001 was filed by the appellant herein praying the Court to issue a direction to the Corporation to forbear from commencing the retail outlet either by the respondents 2 to 5 or by any of his agents.3. The learned single Judge by an order dated 21.12.2001 allowed W.P.3842 of 2001 and directed respondents 2 to 5 herein to consider the first respondent for appointment as dealer of the retail outlet at Vellode village, Erode District, subject to the satisfaction of the required condit...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Sakthivel and Vs. R. Sekar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ756
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application to direct the petitioners/defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit amount or to appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish security under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. Accordingly, the trial Court on 1.7.1999 issued notice to the petitioners/defendants returnable by 16.7.1999 and they were further directed to furnish security. On 16.7.1999, the defendants entered appearance through counsel and a counter was also filed on that date. On the same day, further order was passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to furnish security by 8.10.1999. When the matter was taken up on 8.10.1999, the trial Court, without conducting any enquiry, straightaway ordered attachment, since the security was not furnished. This order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners/defe...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. the Madras Motors Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)221
ORDERV. S. Sirpurkar, J.This common tax case reference pertains to two assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and hence technically two tax cases have been filed they being T.C. Nos. 948 and 949 of 1995. The referred common questions are as follows :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that in respect of income derived from (a) interest receipts, (b) Modvat credits, and (c) international price rationalisation the assessee was entitled to deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2, Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in section 80HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee ?'The following facts will help us to understand the controversy.2. The assessee is a company carrying on business of forgings,The assess...
Tag this Judgment!Komiah Vs. Subbulakshmiammal and Soundaraja Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ647
K. Sampath, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.110/1983, on the file of the District Munsif, Shencottah, is the appellant in the second appeal.2. He filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant/first respondent herein, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as cultivating tenant alleging as follows:He became a lessee of Lakshmiammal about four years prior to suit, agreeing to pay four kottahs of paddy every year. She died in or about 1980. During her lifetime, the second defendant/second respondent herein, was receiving the rent from the plaintiff on her behalf. Even after the death of Lakshmiammal, he continued to be in possession of the suit properties as cultivating tenant. He had been regularly paying the rent to the second defendant till pisanam 1983. The original owner and the plaintiff had entered into a lease arrangement on 11.3.1979. On 26.3.1983, the first defendant came to the suit properties, informed him that she had...
Tag this Judgment!D. Krishnamurthy Vs. A. Subramania Mudaliar and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ708
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The fifth defendant in O.S.No.238 of 1983 who is the second respondent in the execution proceedings filed in O.S.NO.726 of 1985 has filed the second appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal respectively. One Munusamy the first respondent herein, the brother of the appellant filed the above suit for declaration and recovery of possession. According to him, the suit property was purchased by him for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed Ex-A10, dated 03-03-1978. The property purchased under Ex-A10, was for an extent of 1.25 cents. Out of this, he sold the eastern 62 1/2 cents to Vanajakshi Ammal, under Ex-A3 dated 25-09-1981. The purchaser is the wife of the sixth defendant who was later transposed as the second plaintiff and is now the second respondent herein. The remaining western 62 1/2 cents was with the first respondent/plaintiff. His father, now dead who was the first defendant had attested Ex-A3. Therefore, his brothers including the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »