Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
The Special Tahsildar (LA.), Chettinaickenpatti Scheme Dindigul Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ720
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. All the above appeal suits are directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Dindigul delivered in L.A.O.P. Nos.23,42 and 26 of 1988 all dated 17.11.1992.2. These appeal suits have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, representing the Government as against the enhancement of the land value fixed by the Reference Court thereby praying to set aside the judgment and decree delivered by the Court of Reference.3. Likewise, the claimants have also preferred cross objections claiming a sum of Rs.4.50p. Per sq.foot to be fixed as the value of the land acquired from them.4. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the properties comprised in S.No.456/1 to an extent of 1.06 acres in LAOP.No.23/88(A.S.No.1013 of 1994),an extent of 1.84 acres comprised in S.No.453;0.37 cents in S.No.454; 4.66 acres in S.No.455 and 2.68 acres in S.No.459 in L.A.O.P.No.42/88(A.S.No.1042 of 1994) and an extent of 1.06 acres in ...
Tag this Judgment!Eswaramurthy (Died), Vs. Muruga Gounder (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ415
ORDER1. There are four appeals and one cross-objection. (a) O.S. No.1290 of 1979 is filed by one Eswaramoorthy and others against Muruga Kounder and two others for partition. This suit was partially decreed. Against this, A.S. No.467 of 1983 and one cross-objection and A.S.No.2 of 1985 were filed. (b) O.S. No.340 of 1980 was filed by Muruga Gounder, the first defendant in the above suit against Palaniammal the mother of the first plaintiff in the previous suit, and plaintiffs 1 & 4 to 7 in the former suit. This was decreed. Against this, Tr.A.S. No.173 of 1981 has been filed. (c) O.S. No.341 of 1980 was filed by the mother of the second defendant in the first suit against the aforesaid Palaniammal and plaintiffs 4 to 7 and also the first defendant in the first suit. That was dismissed. Against this, A.S. No.174 of 1981 has been filed. 2. The genealogy of the parties to these proceedings must be first taken note of. The suit properties belong to one Kavundammal. She had three daughters ...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' Association, represented by Its Secretari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ538
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners, Kodaikanal Motor Bus owners' Association and Kodaikanal Lorry Owners' Association respectively have questioned the validity of G.O.(D) 51, Highways Department, dated 14.6.2000 in so far as it imposes the levy of toll in respect of buses and lorries operated by the petitioners Associations. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order levying toll for using the Kodaikanal ghat road. 2. For convenience it will be sufficient to refer to the affidavit filed in respect of W.P.No.21278 of 2000 considering that identical issues are raised in both the writ petitions. 3. The petitioner Association is a registered Association. The rate of levy in respect of buses by virtue of the impugned order is at Rs.75/- per bus per day. The members of the petitioner Association are plying their vehicles through Dindigul - Kodaikanal road and therefore, they will be subjected to levy of toll every day. It is further subm...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Niranjan Kani Vs. N. Rajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC742; (2002)2MLJ355
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order of the learned 2nd Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 9.5.2001 passed in I.A. No.506 of 1997 in O.P. No.632 of 1996. 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for Mr.R.Srinivasan, appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Sheela Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel for either side, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 2.5.85 at Madras. During the said marital life, they have begotten two daughters, namely, Minor Niraja and Minor Sahana respectively aged 9 and 7 years. 4. The husband instituted O.P. No.632 of 1996 against the wife for dissolution of marriage on the allegation that the wife was living in adultry, besides on the ground of cruelty. We are not concern...
Tag this Judgment!M. Joseph Vs. Union Christian High Schoolmadurai, Established and Run ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ565
Prabha Sridevan,J. 1. The writ appellant is a member of the staff of the first respondent's school run by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church ('TELC' in short), Education Board. A charge memo was issued on 17-08-1985 making certain allegations. He submitted his reply. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 13-01-1986, the appellant was informed that an enquiry would be held in respect of those charges. In the ex-parte enquiry the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, an order of dismissal was issued by TELC Board. The question arose whether the Board was the competent authority. The Director of School Education by his proceedings, dated 23-06-1986 clarified that since TELC has not been declared by the Government as 'Corporate body', the Correspondent of the School is the competent authority to issue the order of dismissal. Pursuant to this, the third respondent by order dated 16-07-1986 directed the first respondent school to reinstate the appellant. This was not implemented. Therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangayarkarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Millers Road, Bangalore and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas487(Mad); (2002)2MLJ444
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Y.K. Rajagopal, in the memo dated 25.9.2001 filed by the petitioner in Arbitration Case R.R/SF/1/2001 dated 21.12.2001.2. The respondent has entered appearance through M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.3. It is the main contention of the respondent that apart from the merits, no revision is maintainable under Article 227 of The Constitution in respect of an order passed by the Arbitrator on a memo and that too in respect of a non statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.4. The factual matrix could be summarised briefly: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 25.1.1996. As disputes have arisen, the respondent appointed Mr. Y.K. Rajagopal as the sole arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Goel Vs. Sanjay Dalmia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC496; (2002)2MLJ399
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The application has been filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Order 4, Rule 8 of the Original Sides Rules for a direction to the respondent to produce minor Piyush before the Court and grant his interim custody to the applicant.2. The original Petition has been filed under Sections 3 and 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with O.21, Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court's Original Side Rules for the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of minor Piyush.3. The petitioner is the maternal grandfather of the minor. The respondent is the father. The case of the petitioner is as follows: His daughter Archana Goel and the respondent were married on 22.1.1999 at Chennai. They were living along with the respondent's family members at No. 1, Third Lane, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. Piyusyh was born to them on 22.2.2000. Ever since her marriage, the respondent and his family members were harassing her with demand ...
Tag this Judgment!Melkuppam Village Panchayat Board by Its President, Vaniyambadi T.K., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ571
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. If an example is required as to how a person can be utterly dishonest and act without conscience by squatting on the property of the Government enriching himself without even paying a pie, here we have, (i.e.) the defendant, whose Legal Representatives are the respondents herein. The defendant has been squatting on the property of the Government of an extent of 25.40 acres (10 hectares) for over four decades and has been successfully avoiding dispossession.2. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No.605 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupattur, against the respondents herein, praying the Court to declare that the suit lands are communal lands vested with the plaintiff/panchayat and to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff/panchayat and for other reliefs.3.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties lie within the revenue village of Melkuppam which was an estate within the meaning of the Madr...
Tag this Judgment!F. Ghouse Muhiddeen Vs. the Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad470
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. Issuance of writ is sought for directing the second respondent to induct an M.L.A. from Muslim community in the Council of Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu.2. The petitioner is an advocate and he filed this writ petition as pro bono publics representing the Muslim minority community in the State of Tamil Nadu and pleading that right from 1954 to 2001, regardless of the parties governing the State, be it Congress, D.M.K. or A.D.M.K., there was at least one Muslim Minister in all those Governments representing the Muslim minority populace of the State of Tamil Nadu andthat only presently, after Dr. J. Jayalalithaa took over the reins as Chief Minister of this State on 2-3-2002, there Is no representation from Muslim community in the Council of Ministers, and because of the fact of continuous Muslim representation in the Council of Ministers right from 1954 to 2001, the said custom has become a force of law under Article 13(3) of Constitution of India. One m...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Anandan Vs. Dr. T. Balamukunda Rao (Died) and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad472; (2002)2MLJ626
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff is the appellant herein who has filed a suit fox specific performance in C.S. No. 495 of 1980 to direct the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,000 and to execute sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property at Door No. 40, Old Door No.32, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Madras - 17 which consist of ground and first floor together with an out house and for recovery of possession of the out house in the suit property.2. The case of the plaintiff was that he started a political party known as Gandhi Kamaraj National Congress on 18.6.1978. After formation of the said party, he was searching for suitable accommodation for the party's office. The defendants are the owners of the suit property. The defendants have orally agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,70,000 in or about the end of June 1978. It is also agreed between the parties to complete the sale on or before 31.12.1979. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »