Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
Jalma Nachiyar Vs. Mohammed Shamshuddeen (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ737
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The wife filed the suit for recovery of the amounts due to her under the head of marital expenses, maintenance etc., it was dismissed by the Trial Court below. The appellant relied on an agreement between the parties to prove her case wherein the respondent had agreed to provide for her security since he was normally resident in Burma. Soon after the execution of the above agreement which is Ex.A.2 dated 8.3.1974, the respondent had divorced her by pronouncing triple talaq and the document in evidence of this is Ex.B.1. The appellant admits that she is now remarried. Her claim for maintenance is restricted to the period during which she was married, since the respondent had left her behind her mother's house and without taking care of her. The Trial Court held that Ex.A.2 was a concocted document and that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance beyond the iddat period and that even this claim was time barred. The judgment was delivered on 27.3.1982 and before...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnaiyan @ Ponnusami Gounder, Easwaramurthy, Muthusami and Subbayal V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad443; (2002)2MLJ659
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendants, who have lost before the Courts below are appellants in this second appeal. The respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 429 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathiamangalam for declaration to declare the easementary right of the plaintiffs over the suit cart track and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit cart track by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the defendants have preferred appeal before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in A.S. No. 23 of 1990, which was also dismissed. Hence, this Second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs are that the properties marked in red colour in the rough sketch presented along with the plaint belonged to the plaintiffs by virtue of a settlement deed dated 11-06-1980 executed by one Rengappa Gounder, husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The properties marked in blue colour in the ske...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai Vs. Pathirakali Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ711
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, has filed the revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A. No. 880 of 2001 dated 16.07.2001.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The defendants in the suit filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 3-A and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to condone the non-examination of the 1st defendant ahead of D.W.1 and to permit her to be examined as D.W.2 in the case. The 1st defendant is the Headmistress of the School mentioned in the schedule for 37 years. O.S.42 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is entitled to management of the School for the year 2000 and also for injunction. In fact, the 1st defendant filed a suit O.S. No. 329 of 2000 for damages on account ofthe fact that she was kept out of the management. There was joint trial of both the suits and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 2000 was examined ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padmavathi Ammal Charitable Trust, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ680
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Smt.Padmavathi Ammal Charitable Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, filed a suit against the respondent (as 2nd defendant and two others) in O.S. No.1793 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, praying the Court to grant a decree, (a) declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled to get patta in respect of the suit property set out in the schedule; (b) for a permanent injunction, restraining the 2nd defendant (petitioner herein) from trespassing into the suit property; (c) for a permanent injunction, restraining the 2nd defendant from alienating or otherwise encumbering with the property; (d) and for a permanent injunction, restraining the 3rd defendant, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai from granting patta to the 2nd defendant. 2. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. On a particular hearing date, that was on 20/03/1990, the suit was dismissed for defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Tan India Workers Union Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ37Mad
1. Petitions are for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to expedite the recovery proceedings and recover the gratuity amount due to the workmen named in the recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Coimbatore. 2. From the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions what comes to be known is that the petitioner-union is functioning in the second respondent-company that the workmen members of the petitioner-union, working in the second respondent-company attained superannuation and they claimed gratuity from the second respondent as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act; that as the respondent did not pay the gratuity, they preferred applications before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Controlling Authority and the same was allowed by the said Assistant Commissioner; that despite the direction given by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the second respo...
Tag this Judgment!Voice Consumer Care Council Rep. by Its Founder Trustee, Chennai Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ799
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. At issue, is the constitutionality of revision of power tariff by the State of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prepares Budget estimates every year and they are placed before the State Legislature. For the year 2001 - 2002 too, such Budget estimate was prepared and was placed before the State Legislature. The revenue gap, after compiling, between the receipts and expenditure, was arrived at Rs.2,747.59 Crores. Responding to the same, the Government had issued G.O. Ms.No.95, dated 28.11.2001 revising power tariff but on representation being made, the escalation in power tariff was slightly reduced by later G.O. Ms. No.96, dated 5.12.2001, making the said modification applicable only to domestic consumers. G.O. Ms. No.95 became effective from 1.12.2001 as modified by G.O. Ms. No.96. The above three writ petitions are pro bono publico. First in order is W.P. No.23807 of 2001 followed by W.P. Nos.25219 and 25220 of 2001. While the power to enhance t...
Tag this Judgment!Thankayyan Nadar, Vs. Retnaselvi and Seetharetnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ578
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. A suit for redemption has been filed in O.S. No.152 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. After contest, the suit was decreed. An appeal was filed in A.S. No.357 of 1977 by the aggrieved defendants, but however, the same was dismissed. The Second Appeal filed in S.A. No.1660 of 1979 before this Court also met with the same fate. 2. E.P. No.145 of 1996 was filed to execute the decree in O.S. No.152 of 1970. The respondents in the E.P. ie., 25th and 26th defendant in O.S. No.152 of 1970 filed a suit in O.S. No.56 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, praying the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.152 of 1970, confirmed in A.S. No.357 of 1977 and in S.A. No.1660 of 1979 and to declare the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The respondents in the said E.P. filed E.A. No.22 of 2000 under Order 21 Rule 29 and Section 151 CPC., ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited, Dalmiapuram, Thiruchirappalli Vs. the Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR117]; (2002)IIILLJ533Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited, Tiruchirappalli, aggrieved by the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli dated 1 / 4 December, 1989, calling upon them to remit Employees Provident Fund arrears, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture of cement and its factory is situated at Dalmiapuram, Tiruchy District. The Federation of various Unions in cement factories in India made a Charter of Demands on the management of cement factories in India on 09.05.1986. In the Charter of Demands, the Federation of all the workers' Association have claimed increase in basic wages, various allowances and other benefits. It was agreed by both sides for referring the issues to arbitration. Pending the arbitration, the workmen pressed for their demand for interim relief as forming part of the original demand i.e., Deman...
Tag this Judgment!Arcot N. Veerasamy Vs. J. Jayalalitha Rep. by V.S. Sethuraman, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4759
ORDERMalai Subramanian, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in Crl.M.P.756/1998 in C.C.NO.2592/1998 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Certain brief facts that are essential to appreciate the rival contentions in this revision are as below:2. The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the petitioner, through her power of attorney Mr. V.S. Sethuraman, alleging that the petitioner made defamatory statements and the same appeared as a news item in the Newspaper @jpdje;jp@. The power of attorney of the complainant while presenting the complaint also filed a petition under Section 199 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to grant leave to make the complaint. This petition was taken on file by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1293/97 and he passed the following order:'On a careful ...
Tag this Judgment!Pavayammal Vs. Komarasami,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ601
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1.One Pavayammal (Plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents herein (D-2, D-4, D-1 and D-5 respectively) and one Marayee Ammal (D-3, since dead) in O.S.125 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Bhavani praying the Court to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay her enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/- per month towards her food, clothing and residence from the date of suit throughout her life time and for further decree directing the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint over which a charge for the proper payment of the maintenance at the previous rate had already been created in O.S.No.171 of 1965 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode will continue to remain charged for the proper payment of the enhanced maintenance and for other reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the wife of the first defendant and the marriage was celebrated in the year 1962. The first defendant fell into the bad com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »