Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
M. Ramanathan Vs. M. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ3
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The revision petitioner sought to be impleaded in O.S. No. 1141 of 1994 filed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 to 9. The application I.A. No. 627 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and therefore, this revision.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the purchaser of the suit property and therefore, he is a necessary party. The first respondent filed the suit for 'directing the defendants 1 to 5 to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/trustee.' According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no trust and the trust deed dated 27.11.1992 makes no mention of the suit property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit property belonged to one Somasundaram. He had executed a Will on 8.6.1990 and after his death, it had devolved upon his grand children and the petitioner had purchased the suit property under three sale deeds dated 15.3.1996, 4.5.1996 and 2.8.1...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Balagopal Rep. by Power Agent V. Jagannathan Vs. Venkatesulu B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad255; (2003)3MLJ805
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The civil revision petition arises against the order of the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore on his having taken on file HMOP. NO. 207 of 2002 on the application of the respondent herein and thereupon against the issuance of summons to the revision petitioner.2. The marriage between the petitioner - Nirmala Balagopal and the respondent Venkatesaulu Balagopal had, admittedly, taken place at Coimbatore 30 years back, more particularly on 8.6.1972. Thereafter, they lived in United States of America as permanent residents thereof and also obtained green cards for their domicile there. Since there was some misunderstanding between them, the petitioner - wife filed proceedings for separation in the Court of State of Connecticut, United States of America and for reciprocal obligations, they entered into a post marital agreement on 21.1.2000 whereby the respondent - husband agreed that whether or not he resides in India, he will not file any legal action...
Tag this Judgment!D. Dhanapal Vs. D. David Livingstone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ668
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. When the matter is listed for admission, after hearing the counsel for the appellant, the same is disposed of in limine. 2. Defendant, who lost before both the Courts below, has filed this Second Appeal. 3. Suit in O.S. No. 381 of 1998 was filed by the respondent herein for declaration that he continues to be the Secretary of the Society and for consequential injunction, restraining the appellant herein from interfering with the normal functioning as Secretary of the Society, which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 4. Before the trial Court, the respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and one Gnanadikan as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A-1 dated 23.09.1967, the Society's Memorandum and By-laws; Ex.A-2, the registration certificate of the Society; Ex.A-3, extract of the Minutes of the General Body Meeting; Ex.A-4, resignation letter submitted by the appellant herein. On the other hand, the appellant herein had not let any oral evidence and onl...
Tag this Judgment!Pachammal and 3 ors. Vs. Rathinasamy and 7 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC100
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order of District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri in LA. 595/97 in O.S. 274/91 dated 15.12.1998 dismissing the Application filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C.2. Parties are related. Plaintiff and Defendants 4 to 8 are related as under: Koolan@ kantha Gounder (Died before 40 years) | ______________________________________________ | | Ganapathy Palaniammal(plaintiff) (Died before 25 years) (Died) | | Ramayee ___________________________________________ (4th Defendent) | | | | | pachammal Rukku salammal Madhaiyan | P.2 P.3 P.4 p.5 ________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Vadivelu Mathiayan@ Manchandran Natesan (5th Deft.) Chinnapaiyan (7th Deft.) (8th Deft.) (6th Deft.)3. The case of the deceased plaintiff Palaniammal is that her father Koolan @ Kandha Gounder purchased the item No. l under Sale Deed dated 11.4.1943. Suit Item No. 2 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Ronikkam and 6 ors. Vs. Aruldass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC705; (2004)1MLJ56
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The petitioners are the alienees and the legal representatives of the alienees from defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 102 of 1973. The respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant. The first defendant is the paternal uncle of the second defendant. After the death of the respondent's father, the second defendant married her husband's brother namely the first defendant. The defendant claimed that he was entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property and the first defendant was entitled to the remaining half share; and that to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 had alienated the suit schedule properties without legal necessity. The respondent claimed that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants 3 to 5 who are the petitioners herein are void. The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte, the alienees viz., the defendants 3 to 5 are the contesting parties. The defendants 3 to 5 claimed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Sathiyabama and ors. Vs. M. Palanisamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC129; (2004)IILLJ403Mad; (2004)1MLJ43
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the amount due as provident fund, leave salary, gratuity etc., to the deceased employee can be attached in the hands of the employer pending the suit for recovery of money filed against the legal representatives of such employee for amounts borrowed by him. 2.One Mariappan is alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the first respondent. Promissory note in evidence of the said loan is alleged to be executed on 20.10.2002. Mariappan died on 31.12.2002 and the petitioners are his legal heirs. The first respondent filed O.S.No.95 of 2003 for recovery of money. Pending suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.224 of 2003 for attachment before judgment of the amounts aforesaid. The other respondents are the Railways-the garnishees. An order of attachment was passed, against which this revision has been filed. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these amounts ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran Vs. the Managing Director, Pallavan Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC30; (2003)3MLJ654
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The Claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1041 of 1993 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras has filed the above appeal claiming enhanced compensation.2. The appellant herein filed the claim petition under Sections 166 etc., of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder contending that on 24.11.1992 at about 5.30 p.m., at the bus stop when he was getting into the bus (route No. 19K) and in that process was standing in the footboard, the driver suddenly drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and overtook a stationary lorry very closely and at that time the appellant/Claimant was hit by the said lorry, as a result of which the Claimant sustained grievous injuries i.e, fracture of ribs and also injury on his hands, etc. According to the Claimant, he was operated and the spleen was also removed. The appellant/Claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under various heads.3. The respondent herein r...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakannan P. and ors. Vs. St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ476Mad; (2003)3MLJ745
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated February 17, 1999, passed in W.P.No.4447 of 1991, the petitioners had filed this writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal, are as follows:The appellants herein had worked under the respondent as workmen from 1985 to 1991 and thereafter, they had been ousted from their services by the respondent Panchayat Union. Since the appellants had worked for a long time under the respondent and they had been terminated from their services, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4447 of 1991, which was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come forward with this appeal.3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent.4. It is contended by the appellants that they used to be employed continuously for a period of 90 d...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. M. Rajan Babu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ114Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner-company has approached this Court questioning the award, dated November 17, 1995, made in I.D. No. 382 of 1992. The first respondent was employed as a semi-skilled worker in petitioner-company. A compliant, dated June 29, 1991, was received from one S. Venkatesan, which was marked before the Labour Court as Exhibit M1. In the said complaint, Venkatesan has stated that he (sic) was denied confirmation and for the said purpose he approached one Elango, a trade union leader of a particular political party. Thereafter, a demand was made for a sum of Rs. 10,000 by the first respondent. Though such a demand was made, on various occasions the said Venkatesan paid amounts to the first respondent. Basing upon the said letter, the first respondent was enquired orally and is stated to have submitted a letter of acceptance and the consequential apology for the demand of money. The said letter was marked as Exhibit M3 before the Labour Court. On the basis of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Ii Addl. Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ984Mad; (2004)1MLJ342
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. W.A. No. 408 of 1996 is preferred against the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 3817 of 1986 dated 15.2.1996. W.A. No. 556 of 1996 is directed against the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 3812 of 1986 dated 15.2.1996. The points that arise in both the appeals are common. 2. In our view, it will be sufficient to notice the facts in W.A. No. 408 of 1996 as facts and points that arise in both the appeals are common. The parties are also common except the second respondent in each of the appeals. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, W.P. No. 3817 of 1986 by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant company, namely, The Management of M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company), are as under:- The writ petition has been filed against the award passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 501 of 1983 holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »