Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
Parvathi Ammal, Vs. S. Madathi Ammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad462; (2002)2MLJ175
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Defendants 2 to 6 are the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 347/82 filed by respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent was the first defendant in the suit. 2. According to the averments in the plaint, the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of one Samivel, who was the husband of the first appellant and respondent and father of appellants 2 to 5 and respondents 2 to 5. Samivel had a wife called Perumal Ammal, who is now deceased is the mother of the fifth respondent herein. The first appellant married Samivel after the death of Perumal Ammal and appellants 2 to 5 were born to them. The first respondent was married to Samivel on 9.6.1969, respondents 2 to 4 were born to them. The first appellant and the first respondent are sisters. Samivel was working in Madura Coats and the first respondent was working as a Government School teacher. Samivel died intestate. The appellants are residing in item No.1 of the suit p...
Tag this Judgment!The Philipspuram Pastorate Church, C.S.i., Rep. by Rev. V. Oliver, Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ167
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The dispute is between two churches for a piece of property. 2. The history of the case starts in the 19th century when Christian Missionaries from England set up missions all over the world to spread the message of Christianity. One such society was the London Mission Society whose object was to enlighten the ignorant regarding the greatness of the Lord. So they left their country and went to the four corners of the world to spread their message. They purchased several properties in India for building churches and prayer halls. In 1804 Rev. Ringeltaube set foot in India and set up several churches in the south. Later, Col. Monroe and Rev. Charles Mead spread the message of Christianity. Mead was appointed as the Judge of Nagercoil Court and he built a huge church in Nagercoil with stones and it was called the Kal kovil. Ex.B5 which is a publication called the 'Nagercoil Home Church properties and gift lands, etc.' gives the history of the properties belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Vs. Boyot Selvacarassou, Power Agent Boyot Virappin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ150
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction is raised in this appeal and that issue as well as other issues that arise will be dealt with. 2. According to the respondent / plaintiff, the suit property belonged to one Ponnurangam Pillai who died in the year 1952 leaving behind three sons and the wife of a predeceased son. He executed a will on 29.8.1940, bequeathing his properties to his wife and the four persons above named. The beneficiaries effected a partition amongst themselves on 17.5.1979. The suit property is located in Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. This share was allotted to Pandurangam, Ponnurangam's son. On 19.2.1981, the respondent purchased the property from Pandurangam. The suit property in which there are coconut groves, was orally leased out to one Dhanusu Pillai and his sons. These lessees subleased the property to a number of tenants, one of whom was the appellant's father Muruga Gramany alias Murugesa Gramany. The arrangement commenced in the ye...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its District Collector, Tirunelveli Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ612
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr.Shiva Shanmugham, Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Even though notices have been served on the respondents on 3.12.2001, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.2.1 The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.833 of 1978 laid by the respondents/plaintiffs for a decree and judgment to declare that the compound wall is within the boundary of the plaintiffs' land in T.S.No.230/1 and consequently, restraining the defendant from demolishing the same by means of a permanent injunction.2.2 The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit on a specific plea that they had purchased the suit building and vacant site in T.S.No.230/1 in Block No.3 of T.S.Ward No.3 of Palayamkottai Municipality and therefore, had prayed for the said declaration. 2.3 The suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant contending that even though the respondents/plaintiffs had purchased the property located in T.S.No.230/1, they had raise...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore, Udhagamandalam, Rep. by Its Manager Vs. A.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ312
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The only short point arises for consideration in the above revision is whether the revision petitioner/respondent in A.S.No.66 of 1997 before the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Ooctacamund, filed against the decree and judgment dated 01.08.1997, made in O.S.No.237 of 1996, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, at Ootacamund, is aggrieved by an order dated 14.8.2001, made in I.A.No.57 of 2000 in A.S.No.66 of 1997, restoring the suit, which was dismissed on 9.2.2000 for default of non payment of deficit court fees in time.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contends that only an appeal lies against the order of dismissal dated 9.2.2000 made in A.S.No.66 of 1997, and that the respondents are not entitled to seek restoration of the suit by filing an interim application in I.A.No.57 of 2000, invoking Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, read with Order 41, Rule 19, CPC.3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the very...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.C. Finance Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India (No. 2) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas369(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This application has been taken out by the administrator of MCC Finance Ltd., praying this court to direct the board of directors of Automobile Products of India Ltd., to file a report as to steps taken by the said company before the BIFR for disposing of 31.5 acres of land located at Bhandup, Mumbai, Maharashtra State and bring the sale proceeds to the credit of Company Petition No. 496 of 2000 and to restrain the said Automobile Products of India Ltd., from selling or disposing of or alienating or encumbering in any other manner the said 31.5 acres of land belonging to Automobile Products of India Ltd., pending the winding up proceedings before this court.2. According to the administrator appointed by this court, the total principal amount outstanding to the depositors by MCC Finance Ltd., is Rs. 165 crores, whereas the assets available with MCC Finance Ltd. and the investment companies is only to the extent of Rs. 4 crores. After the arrest of the former chairma...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ106
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner is the Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Limited and it has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in Approval Petition No.53/93 in I.D.No.62/82 dated 13-9-1995. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. The second respondent was working as a driver in the Tiruppur branch of the petitioner Corporation and on 26-5-1989, he was driving Corporation bus in the route from Trichy to Tiruppur. Near Vellaikoil, the Checking Inspector tried to stop the bus for the purpose of boarding it to check whether tickets were properly issued by the conductor. Even though the Checking Inspector showed the diary, the second respondent did not stop the bus and went to a distance of 300 feet and only thereafter stopped the bus. The Checking Inspector boarded the bus and asked the second respondent as to why he did not stop the bus even after he indicated to stop the bus by showing the diary. The second respon...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai, Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ146
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Judge dated 1.3.2002 in Application No.334 of 2002, directing the garnishee, the second respondent herein, to retain a sum of Rs.1,18,31,000/- until further direction.2.The admitted facts are:- The first respondent herein advanced money on hire purchase agreement to the first appellant herein. The second appellant is the guarantor. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, the parties have to go for arbitration, if any dispute arises between them. The application 334 of 2002 was filed by the first respondent, seeking a garnishee order on the ground that the first respondent do not want to exercise their right to repossess the machineries hired to the first appellant, since the value of the machineries will be considerably reduced by such repossession. As the appellants failed to discharge their obligation of repayment of the loan amount as per the schedule and the arrears had accrued...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Telekom Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT252(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondents, viz., Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and Deputy Director, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence to complete the investigation in respect of import of Compact Florescent Lamps made by the petitioner under cover of Bill of Entry No. 382177, dated 6-3-2002 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and not to insist upon deposit of any sum representing any duty before adjudication of the case as per Customs Act. 2. The precise case of the petitioner is that during the course of the business, the petitioner firm ordered for import of 100 cartons consisting of 20,000 pieces of Compact Florescent Lamps from Kiara Gemilang Enterprise. When the consignment arrived at Madras, the petitioner firm filed a Bill of Entry No. 382177 dated 6-3-2002 with the second respondent for the purpose of completing cu...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner Office of the Regional Provident Fund, Royapettah, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ422
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.876 of 1990, filed by the first respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from stopping the family pension and recovering the pension amount by letter dated 14.6.1990. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. 4. The plaintiff laid the suit in O.S.No.876 of 1990 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, alleging that she got married to one Subramanian, son of Rangasamy, an employee under the second defendant-mill, and begot four children, viz., Murugasamy, Gunavathy, Murthy and Vellayan. According to the plaintiff, her husband, Subramanian, son of Rangasamy, died on 28.10.1978, when he was in service under the second defendant-mill, and therefore, she was given employment on compassionate ground. Unfortunately, she lost her first son Murugasamy in the year 1979. But after the death of her husband on 28.10.1978, she w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »