Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
Sivagurunathan Vs. Rajendrababu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC402; (2003)1MLJ463
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The proposed second Plaintiff in O.S. No. 397 of 1995 is the revision petitioner herein. The Plaintiff namely Krishnaveni Ammal has filed the said suit against the respondents herein for mandatory injunction directing them to pay half of the produce from the suit property to her till her death and for other reliefs. Pending suit, Krishnaveni Ammal died. The petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 1097 of 2000 under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC to implead him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the application, hence the present revision.2. Mr. Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Krishnaveni Ammal has bequeathed the manse profits payable to her by the respondents till her lifetime to the petitioner herein under a 'will' dated 14-07-1994; that by virtue of the said 'will' the petitioner is entitled to manse profits payable to Krishnaveni Ammal by the respondents from the date of the suit namely...
Tag this Judgment!S. Indrakumari Vs. S. Subbaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC259; I(2003)DMC668; (2003)2MLJ148
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Family Court, Madras dated 13.08.2002 made in F.C.O.P. No. 390 of 1995 granting divorce, the wife has filed the above appeal. 2. The husband has filed the said O.P., before the Principal Family Court Judge, Madras seeking a decree for divorce and dissolving his marriage with the first respondent therein / appellant herein under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'). 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent therein / appellant herein was performed on 01.07.1993 at Rajapalayam according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was arranged and settled by the elders on 11.12.1993. The nuptial was fixed on 01.07.1993 night between 10.30 and 11.35 p.m. as per the opinion and advice of the Astrologers. But the first respondent refused to cohabit with the petitioner on the first night itself, i.e., on 01.07.1993 and she o...
Tag this Judgment!T. Vennila Vs. Thangavel @ Kumar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4049
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed by the defacto complainant Vennila, against the Judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.A. No. 69/1999 allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam in C.C. No. 7/98 convicting the respondents herein for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 498A and 406 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on each of the counts and a fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. It may not be necessary for me to go deep into the facts of the case since what had been decided and what is to be decided is not in relation to the facts and circumstances of the case but on the technical points raised by the petitioner herein. After the said conviction of the first three respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam in C.C. No. 7/98 for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 498-A and 406 o...
Tag this Judgment!Searle (India) Limited, Rep. by Its President Dr. K.K. Maheswari Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC397; (2003)1MLJ558
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. By consent of parties this contempt appeal has been taken up for hearing as this appeal arises out of contempt proceedings for alleged breach of an order of interim injunction. The further order made on the application for injunction was the subject matter of appeal in O.S.A. No. 96 of 1997 which has been heard and allowed today. 2. The appellant was the defendant in C.S. No. 92 of 1997, a suit filed on the original side of this Court. The prayer made in the suit was to direct the appellant herein to continue the clearing and forwarding agency of the plaintiff as per the agreement between the parties dated 11.11.1986 as renewed and confirmed by letter dated 12.04.1994. The plaintiff filed an application O.A. No. 98 of 1997 seeking an order of interim injunction to restrain the appellant, his agents and servants from acting in any manner upon the termination letter dated 18.01.1997 that had been issued to the plaintiff more than a month prior to the date on which...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kalyanasundaram Vs. K. Paquialatchamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad43; (2003)1MLJ669
A.K. Rajan, J. 1. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife; the marriage between them took place on 4.7.1984 at Pondicherry, according to Hindu rites and custom; It was also registered before the Registrar, Pondicherry. The husband was working in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. Soon after the marriage, the husband and wife were residing at Delhi till 1988; they are living separately from 1988. There were some earlier judicial proceedings between the parties. Presently, the husband filed M.O.P.94 of 1991 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage. The Family Court dismissed his petition. C.M.A. No. 1550 of 1995 is against challenging the judgment dismissing his petition for divorce. Subsequent to the dismissal of M.O.P. 94 of 1991, the wife filed M.O.P. 110 of 1995 seeking restoration of conjugal rights. The Court granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights; Challenging that, the husband has preferred C.M....
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Rohera, Vs. First Leasing Company of India Limited, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC265; [2003]117CompCas215(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 9151 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same against the petitioners.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it comes to be known that the respondent herein had filed a private complaint before the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 as against the petitioners and others praying to punish them petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Petitioners are arrayed as A.5 to A.8 in the case. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the Accused No. 3 to 8 in the case are the Directors of the first accused company whereas the second accused is the Managing Director of the same; that the accused entered int...
Tag this Judgment!H. Naina Mohamed Vs. R. Gokul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ747
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question as to 'whether the petition under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the tenant, praying for direction to the landlord for re-delivery of possession of the petition premises, in view of breach of undertaking given by the landlord through agreement dated 19-1-1996, who took possession from the tenant that he would hand over the possession of the same after demolition or re-construction, is maintainable before the Rent Controller or not' is sought to be answered in this revision. 2. R. Gokul, the tenant, the respondent herein, filed a petition before the Rent Controller under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Act for re-delivery of possession of the rented premises.3. The case of the respondent/tenant is as follows:-'(a) The petition premises was used for non-residential purpose, where the tenant was carrying on banking business. The petitioner/landlord repre...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinam Pillai and Jayaraman Vs. Chellammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC271
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern the two appeals viz. A.S. 250 and 783 of 1987.2. These two appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul made in O.S. No. 114/82, a suit for partition, which was jointly tried along with O.S. Nos. 195 and 196 of 1983. 3. The appellant in A.S. No. 783/87 along with her brother Chinnasamy filed the said suit for partition against the appellants in A.S. No. 250/87 who were shown as defendants 1 and 3 and against so many others. The trial Court granted a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession allotting 13/15th share in the 'A' Schedule property, while it rejected the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the immovable properties covered under suit 'B' Schedule. Aggrieved over the denial of their claim in respect of 'B' Schedule, the first plaintiff has brought forth A.S. No. 783/87. The defendants 1 and 3 who were aggrieved over the grant of the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!C. Damodarasamy Vs. Government of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR655]; (2003)IILLJ469Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration that the cut off date of 1.11.93 prescribed in the proviso to Rule 33 of The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, read with order dated 27.11.95 issued by the 3rd respondent are illegal and unconstitutional and, consequently, direct the respondents to grant regular pension or compassionate allowance under the said Rules, from the date fixed by the rules with all arrears and attendant benefits, including interest thereon, award cost and render justice.I. PETITIONER'S CASE :2. The petitioner joined the Life Insurance Corporation of India as Development Officer in the year 1962. On 22.4.1976, LIC issued Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Amendment) Regulations, 1976. In terms of Regulation 5, if a Development Officer failed to bring in eligible premium equal to five times his annual remuneration in three consecutive preceding years, the appointing authority may ter...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and V.R. Rajasekharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad180; 2003(1)CTC355; (2003)1MLJ626
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The second respondent/first defendant owned the suit property. The appellant / second defendant claims to have purchased the property bona fide on 22-04-1982. Ex-B4 is the sale deed and Ex-B5 is the sale agreement dated 25-11-1981 that is said to have preceded it. On the other hand, the first respondent/plaintiff claims to be entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement Ex-A7 dated 06-02-1982, between her and the first defendant. The first defendant after filing the written statement remained ex parte. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Single Judge granted a decree. 2. According to the plaint, on 03-08-1981, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the husband of the plaintiff for conveying the suit property for a price of Rs.24,410/-. A notice dated 1.1.1982 was issued by the plaintiff's husband and a suit was filed. Other suits for injunction and other reliefs were filed by the parties herein against each ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »