Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
K. Jayakumar Vs. Robert,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ112
K. Sampath, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No.879/83 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondents herein are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, who died pending the proceedings. 2. The case of the plaintiff was as follows:On 30-6-1980 the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property for Rs.6,500/-. On the same day the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the defendant as advance. As per the terms of the agreement the defendant was to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.6000/- and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Though time was fixed as one year, i.e. 30-6-1980 to 29-6-1981 in the contract, the parties intended that the time was not the essence of the contract. If the purchaser failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the agreement would get not only cancelled, but the purchaser would also lose the advance and all rights to the property. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Ramanathan and N.R. Panchamirtha Iyer Vs. N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad78
K. Sampath, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.207/82 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, are the appellants in the second appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title over B Schedule property to the plaint and for a permanent injunction. He died pending second appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 4 to 8. The eighth respondent also passed away and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 9 to 12. 2. The case of the plaintiff was as follows: The suit A Schedule property was a vacant site allotted to him in a partition suit in O.S.No.97/61 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpattu. He was having his house opposite to this site. This house also fell to his share in the partition. Prior to this suit, it was enjoyed by the plaintiff's family exclusively. He had put up a small construction and was enjoying the same. On the eastern side of the property, he had grown velikathan t...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Subramanian Son of K.S. Sankaran, Chennai and V. Vasanthi Devi D/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad228; II(2002)DMC126; (2002)2MLJ1
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 24.9.2001 made in H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2001 dismissing the joint petition filed for divorce by consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioners have preferred the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have filed the said O.P. before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee under Section 13B for divorce by mutual consent. In the said petition, it is stated that the petitioners got married on 22.9.1960 at Dindigul as per customary rituals under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the said marriage, they lived together at various places and they last resided at No.5, 2nd Cross Street, Ramappa Nagar, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096 which is the house built and owned by the first petitioner. They have one son and one daughter born out of their wed lock. The son is aged 39 years and is married and is now teaching at Canada in a University and is well se...
Tag this Judgment!M. Navamani Vs. A.S.A. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ314
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2001 and made in R.C.A.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent control Appellate Authority Sub Judge) Virudhunagar.2.The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:The Revision Petitioner who is the tenant of the premises described in the Rent Control Petition on a monthly rent of Rs260/= (Rs.130-00 towards rent and Rs.130-00 towards amenities). He is the respondent before the Rent Control Court. A sum of Rs. 520/- was received by the respondent herein as landlord of the premises towards advance. The tenancy is according to English calendar month. Respondent herein in occupation of the rental premises bearing door No.7, T.S. Chidambara Nadar Street, Virudhunagar. Respondent is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in Virudhunagar to carry on his business excepting the building in which the rev...
Tag this Judgment!Rengasami Reddiar (Died), Vs. M.K. Mummachi Reddiar (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ760
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The plaintiff is the 1st appellant (now deceased). The suit is one for partition. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and Kuppachi Reddiar (K), the father of the 1st defendant (now deceased) were brothers and constituted a joint family. There existed an ancestral nucleus and from the income generated by joint exertion in the properties taken on lease in the name of K, the suit properties were purchased. The suit properties are liable to be partitioned. The respondents / defendants filed an earlier suit where they admitted the existence of joint family property. Subsequently, before Panchayatdars, the parties divided the properties. K died on 15.2.1970 and it was only the plaintiff's son and another who took him to the hospital and brought him back after the death. Though the acquisitions were made by joint effort, the properties were in the name of the eldest member of the family namely K. The suit filed by the respondents claiming exclusive possession was d...
Tag this Judgment!S. Abdul Muthalif Vs. N.S. Khader Oli Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ392
K. Sampath, J. 1. The defendant in O.S.No.812/1983 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money due on an assigned promissory note. His case was as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from one Vellaisamy on 9.1.1982 and executed a promissory note promising to repay the amount on demand with interest at 12% per annum. He did not repay any amount to Vellaisamy. The plaintiff paid the principal and interest due on the promissory note to Vellaisamy on 1.7.1982 and got an assignment from him. He called upon the defendant to pay the amount several times. He caused a notice to be issued on 7.9.1982 through his Lawyer. The defendant did not pay any amount. The defendant was an agriculturist and therefore interest was being claimed as per the provisions of Act 8/73 and Act 40/79. The defendant was possessed of a lot of properties. He was not entitled to the benefits of...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Srinivasa Gopalan Vs. V. Siva Sankaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ210
K. Sampath, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.464 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chengalput, is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. He filed the suit against the respondent herein for declaration of title of his joint family and his brothers to the suit properties, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from entering upon and selling the same on the following averments: The suit properties belonged to the joint family of himself, his brothers and their father Late Neelameghachari. Neelameghachari died on 12.12.1976 leaving his widow, his sons, the plaintiff and his brothers, and his daughters as his sole heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiff was filing the suit in his capacity as the Manager of the joint family. The family was the absolute owner of the suit lands and had been in possession and enjoyment. Item 1 was got by Neelameghachari under a compromise decree, dt.21.9.1949 in O.S.No.139 of 1948 on the file of the District Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tan India Ltd., Wattle Division Vs. Presiding Officer, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ678Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner-management has filed the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated January 27, 1995. The second respondent herein was appointed as an electrician on probation on August 1, 1981. On May 8, 1991, when the petitioner was on duty, there was electricity failure at 4.45 P.M. The second respondent was asked to attend to the same but he refused. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and the second respondent's service was terminated on July 11, 1991. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent, Labour Court, Coimbatore. The learned Judge presiding over the Labour Court has found that the enquiry was held in a proper manner and the second respondent himself did not challenge the procedure adopted by the petitioner in the enquiry. The Labour Court has further found that there was some insubordination on the part of the second respondent and consequently he cannot be directed to be re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›