Chennai Court February 2003 Judgments
M. Ramalingam (Died), Vs. V. Subramanyam (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad305; (2003)1MLJ694
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The defendant and his legal representatives are the appellants herein.2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore granting a decree in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.3. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance with the following averments:The suit property belonged to the defendant. The defendant entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff on 22.5.1978 agreeing to convey the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was received by the defendant as advance, and he acknowledged its receipt in the agreement. On the date of agreement, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff as further advance. The balance of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid within six months from the date of agreement. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay Rs. 5,000/-, and when he tendered the same in person on several oc...
Tag this Judgment!Saravana Pillai Vs. A.S. Mariappan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ693
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. These three review applications are filed by the appellants in S.A.Nos.978, 1195 and 1236 of 1990. 2. The applicant/appellant was the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.652/82, wherein he sought for a declaration of his title to the property, while the respondents 1 and 4 in Review Application No. 148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 665/82 for mandatory injunction, and the fifth respondent in Review Application No. 148 of 2002 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 714/82 for declaration of her title. It is admitted by both sides that the subject matter in all the three suits were the two portions of the same property. This Court heard both sides at the time of the second appeals elaborately and after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence, has delivered a judgment with the reasonings in full. Now, the applicant/appellant has come forward with these review applications seeking for the review of the judgment of this Court in the three second appeals. A perusal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs. M. Devaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad212; I(2003)DMC799; (2003)1MLJ752
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Family Court, Madras dated 25-7-2002, made in I.A. No. 1058/2001 in O.P. No. 1310/2000, granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-, the husband has preferred the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner/husband has preferred the said O.P. for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pending the said petition, the wife/respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 1058/2001 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said application was resisted by the husband stating that she is working in a private concern and drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. It is also stated that he is earning only Rs.2000/- per month. Before the Family Court, salary certificate of the husband dated 10-6-2002 has been marked as ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association, represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad340; (2003)1MLJ812
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association through its Secretary has filed W.P. No. 24999/2002 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly the Southern Railway not to insist (Height + 3) formula for the purpose of renewal of the agreement of the members of the petitioner Association.2. M/s. Swamy's Publicity Service through its proprietor has filed W.P. No. 25000/2002 questioning the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28-5-2002 as far as insistence of maintaining (height + 3 metres) for the purpose of renewal and also the proceedings of the third respondent/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway dated 2-7-2002 on various grounds. They also prayed for direction to the respondents to renew the agreement of the petitioner for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003 without insisting...
Tag this Judgment!Statex Mills Rep. by Power Agent G. Satishkumar Vs. C.N.P. Rukmani, Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC417; [2003]117CompCas280(Mad)
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the orders passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2767 of 1999 in C.C. No. 197 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupur, in dropping the proceedings against the respondent herein.2. The brief facts of the prosecution as revealed in the complaint is that the respondent woman was a proprietrix of BEE ARR Textiles and she had purchased materials from the complainant Company, namely Statex Mills, to the tune of Rs. 2,34,000/- and by way of payment, she had caused a cheque to be issued through Power of Attorney, namely her husband, to the said amount. But, when the cheque was presented in the bank, the same was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and thereupon as required under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a notice was sent, both to the Power of Attorney, namely the husband of the respondent and the respondent. Both did not receive the notice and they were returned unclaimed. After complying with a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramaniam Vs. the Central Bank of India Rep. by Its Managing Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ146Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner, a retired officer of the respondent Bank, has prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring Regulation No. 22 of The Central Bank of India Employees Pension Regulation, 1995, is null and void insofar as it disentitles the employees who resigned to pension and, consequently direct the respondent to pay pension to the petitioner.2. Heard Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Karthik, learned counsel appearing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The facts leading to the present writ petition has to be summarised briefly for considering the contentions advanced by petitioner. The petitioner, who joined the respondent Bank as a clerk on 3.9.56, in course of time earned promotion to the cadre of officer. In September 1986, the petitioner submitted his resignation in accordance with the Central Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank, Represented by Its Assistant, General Manager Vs. the Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ972Mad; (2003)2MLJ17
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Indian Bank through its Assistant General Manager, Central Office, Chennai-1 has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, forbearing the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai-4/first respondent herein from deciding or proceeding further in the complaint filed by the second respondent in O.P. No. 309 of 2001.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-According to them, a committee was constituted by the Government of India to study the introduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Nationalised Banks due to the economic reforms set in 1990. The Indian Bank Association with the approval of the Government of India, made a model policy for the voluntary retirement and advised all Public Sector Banks the salient features of the scheme for implementing the scheme, with the approval of the respective Bank's Board. Thus, the Indian Bank Employees VRS-2000 (here...
Tag this Judgment!The City Union Bank Limited by Its Branch Manager Vs. C. Thangarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC528; [2004]118CompCas641(Mad); 2003(3)CTC710; (2003)1MLJ799; [2003]46SCL237(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The City Union Bank Limited, Thirukattupalli Branch, filed a suit in OS. No. 193/1986, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, against (1) Kumaraswamy, (2) Chellapappa and (3) Thangaraj, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2568.15/-, with future interest.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant along with others executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff/Bank on 19.11.1983 in Thirukkattupalli for Rs.4,000/-, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at Rs.16.50/- per cent per annum (compound interest) with quarterly rests. The loan was advanced for commercial purposes. The liability of the defendants interse is joint and several. 3. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement, wherein, it is stated that the document relied upon by the Bank is not a promissory note, so as to clothe him with any liability and the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant has not participated in any transactions with the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal Vs. Chandrakasa Padayachi (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC677; (2003)2MLJ286
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The defendant is the appellant.2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:-The suit property is a village samudayam land and there are 50 pattadars to the suit property. The plaintiff's paternal grand father, Saminatha Padayachi was one among the 50 pattadars. A suit in OS No. 68/1932 was filed by 28 pattadars, against the remaining pattadars for partition, in respect of the suit land, among other properties, in which the plaintiff's grand father was the 3rd defendant. The suit property was shown as item 16 in Schedule-A and the said suit was compromised and a final decree was passed, in respect of items 1 to 15 and leaving the rest of the property as common properties, to be enjoyed by the pattadars in common. The intention of the pattadars for retention of the suit property was, for the use of the temple, viz. Droupathi Amman Temple, which is situated in a portion of the suit property. As the suit property is a village samudayam land, all the pat...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar Temple Represented by Its Present ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC663; (2003)3MLJ161
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The learned single Judge has set aside the judgment of the trial Court solely on the ground that the issues had not been properly framed. 2. We have gone through those issues. Though better language could have been employed to bring into focus the issues that arose in the case, the remand of the case, nearly fifteen years after the disposal by the trial Court, solely for the purpose of re-writing the issues and thereafter, considering the same evidence, in our view, was not the appropriate course to be followed. 3. In the matter of framing issues as also in the matter of writing judgments, a great deal depends upon the literary skills of the Presiding Officer and the fact that many of these Officers do not possess that skill in the requisite degree is a reality which has to be accepted. If, on a fair reading of what has been written, it is possible to ascertain as to what was intended to be conveyed, the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »