Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
Ramesh Babu Vs. Tmt. Usha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad281; 2003(1)CTC471; I(2004)DMC581; (2003)1MLJ576
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since both the revisions are filed against the very same order of the Family Court, Madurai, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, Madurai dated 23.07.2002 made in I.A.No.225 of 1998 in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 1997, granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per month and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses, the husband has preferred CRP.No.2089 of 2002. Against the same order, the wife has preferred CRP.No.2078 of 2002, praying for higher amount towards interim maintenance and litigation expenses.3. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.4. For convenience, I shall refer the husband as petitioner and the wife as respondent.5. It is seen that the husband by name Ramesh Babu has preferred HMOP.No.5 of 1997 before the Family Court, Madurai under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'the Act'), for annulment of the marriage, which was held on 05.11.1995 at Madurai, as null and...
Tag this Judgment!indira, Vs. Surgent Magarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC573; [2004]118CompCas638(Mad); 2003CriLJ2623; 2003(3)CTC91
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in Crl.M.P. No. 3932 of 2000, dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, to allow them to represent the deceased complainant, in CC No. 164 of 1998, as complainant.2. It may not be necessary for me to go into the facts of the case, since the point that is involved is only in relation to the substitution of the complainant, after his demise. The circumstances under which the said petition had been filed in the lower court by the petitioners are as follows:- a)One Mr. P.S. Subbiah had filed a complaint against the respondent for having committed offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in June 1998. The Magistrate had taken the sworn statement on 8.8.1998. Later he took cognizance of the said offence and numbered the case as CC No. 164 of 1998. However it appears that the case di...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Vellalar Sangam, Represented by Its Treasurer Sri A. Joseph ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ665
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order in unregistered E.A. General No. 14969 of 2002 in E.P. No. 211 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No. 66 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tirunelveli dated 17-12-2002, the petitioner/third party has filed the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. According to the petitioner Sangham, it is in possession of upstairs in door No. 260, Tiruchendur Road, Palayamkottai. The said properties belongs to Muthiah Pillai Tamil Language Trust. One Jayanth Rhenius got a letter of administration in O.P. No. 515/1996 on the file of the Original Side of this Court and on the basis of it, he had sold the property to the first respondent. The petitioner Sangham which is interested in the Muthiah Pillai Tamil Language Trust, filed O.A. No. 5109/2001 before this Court to revoke the said order of letter of administration. The said application was dismissed. The petitioner filed O.S.A. No. 398 of 2002 against the said or...
Tag this Judgment!N. Karpagam, Vs. P. Deivanaiammal @ Deivathal @ Deivathayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad219; (2003)1MLJ550
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, dated 20-12-2002, directing the Inspector of Police, Vangal to provide police protection to the petitioner therein/respondent herein, the petitioners/respondents therein preferred the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard Mr. S. Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sethuratnam, learned senior counsel for the respondent.3. The petitioner/respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No.142/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She also filed an application in I.A.No.221/2002 praying for a temporary injunction for the same effect. Originally an ex parte interim injunction was granted and subsequently the said application was allowed and the injunction was made absolute o...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathurai and Anandan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu, Rep., by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC556
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioners seek for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 28.5.2002 issued by the first respondent in so far as it seeks to fix the age limit at 21 years as on 1.7.2002 for admission into under graduate courses in Arts and Science Colleges, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to admit the petitioners in B.A. Tamil Literature in the fourth respondent College for the year 2002-2003.2. According to the first petitioner, he belongs to Adi Dravida Community. He hails from an interior draught prone Village in Dharmapuri District and his father is an agricultural coolie. He does not own any land or house. He is an illiterate and did not have any formal education and he also lost his mother at the age of seven. The second petitioner also belongs to Adi Dravida Community. He is also a coolie in Ambur bus stand. His father is also an illiterate and he has one brother and five sisters and all of them are il...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Enterprises Rep. by Its Proprietrix Mrs. K. Vasumathi Vs. the Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad151
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings Roc.NO.2366/99/Mines-C dated 10.1.2000 and quash the same.2. This court issued rule nisi on 23.4.2002.The respondent has been served and entered appearance through the Special Government Pleader. The respondents ;have also filed a counter.3. Heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on several days and detailed arguments were advanced by Mr.Gunaraj who sought to sustain the impugned order, while Mr.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced detailed contentions challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 10.1.2000.4. Certain undisputed facts have to be set out. The writ petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry black dimensional granite Stone owned by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Xs Financial Services Ltd. and Megapro Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N. De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad369; (2003)1MLJ613
D. Murugesan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 03.12.1997 made in Application No. 2668 of 1997 in C.S. No. 269 of 1996. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit and the parties are referred to in the order as arrayed in the appeal. Few facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summarized as follows:-The appellants filed the suit against the respondents for a judgment and decree, directing the respondents jointly and severally to pay the appellants a sum of Rs.71,80,888/- together with interest thereof at the rate of 28% p.a. on Rs.56,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of payment and in default thereof to pass a charge decree and order for sale of the 8.84 lakh bonus shares of the third respondent company. 3. While the suit was pending, Application No. 909 of 1997 was filed by the appellants to record the Memorandum of Compromise dated 30.04...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Selvanachi and Subbalakshmi Vs. Dr. S.R. Sekar and S. Kanagambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ769
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the first respondent for declaration of his title to a house, more fully described in the plaint schedule. The Trial Court decreed the suit and that decree was affirmed in appeal. The present appeal is by defendants 2 and 3, who have purchased the property from defendant No. 1.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit schedule property all along stood in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, who is defendant No. 1. The site had been purchased in her name, the building plan had been sanctioned in her name and all taxes were shown in the records as having been paid by her. Her husband, the father of the plaintiff, was an employee of the Government. He also had ancestral properties.3. The plaintiff, his two brothers and their father entered into a partition under a registered deed dated 19.2.1969, in which it was stated that though the house stood in the name of the mother, it in fact belonged to the father and...
Tag this Judgment!V. Palani Vs. S.P. Chandrabose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2594
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. V. Palani, presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings arising out of the private complaint filed by one S.P. Chandrabose, Advocate, practicing at Tiruppatur, taken on file in C.C. No. 212 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppattur for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. 2. A reading of the records would reveal the following facts:-(a) J.P. Chandrabose, the complainant (practicing advocate) issued notice to Palani, the then Inspector of Police on behalf of his client Varadharajan on 8-3-1993. The said Palani issued reply notice to the complainant on 17-3-1993, stating that the notice issued by him contained defamatory allegations. On receipt of the same, the complainant sent a reply notice on 12-5-1993 that the notice has been issued by him not in his individual capacity, but on behalf of his client. (b) Not being...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ750Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Management of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd., Salem, is the writ- petitioner in both the writ petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 12998 of 1997, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the first respondent in order No. L.29024/21-97-IR(Misc), dated July 11, 1.997, and quash the same.3. In Writ Petition No. 12999 of 1997 the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the order of the first respondent in No. L.29024//21-97-IR(Misc), dated April 15, 1997, and quash the same.4. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.5. Heard Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 10 and none appearing for the first respondent-Union of India.6. The writ petitioner-company is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking engaged in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »