Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Textiles Exports Incorporated Represented by Its Partner Sri Harip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC506; [2004]118CompCas728(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The defendants are the appellants herein.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money and for a mortgage decree.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,93,056.55 with subsequent interest at 21.5% and for a mortgage decree with the following averments:The first defendant availed a loan facility from the plaintiff Bank as per DD No. 964 by discounting a bill drawn on M/s. C.T.M. Textiles, Ahmedabad for Rs. 66,501.50 as per Lorry Receipt No. 312226 dated 15.4.1982. The said bill was returned unpaid. The first defendant availed another loan facility on 15.4.82 under DD No. 975 by discounting a Bill on M/s. C.T.M. Textiles, Ahmedabad for Rs. 63,512.33 covered under Lorry Receipt No. 312227. This bill was also returned unpaid. The account of the first defendant was debited for the bill amount together with overdue i...
Perianayagasamy Madrid (Died) Rep. by His Legal Representative Swapna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ26
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry whereby the claim for partition made by the plaintiffs was rejected.3. The plaintiff Periyanayagasamy Madrid filed the suit with the following averments:The plaintiff who was working in the Military at France, after retirement, came to Pondicherry and purchased the suit property in the name of his wife Amalorpava Madrid on 21.9.1939. He paid the sale consideration. He is having three daughters and two sons, the defendants herein. His wife died on 28.4.1961. He had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He leased out the first floor of the suit property to one Benugoal Ghosai. After the death of his wife, he married Regina Marie. The first defendant forced him to convey his entire share in her favour, which was refused by him. The first defendant beat him. A complaint was lodged to S....
K. Vinodkumar Vs. S. Palanisamy, Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ173
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appellant, in this appeal put in issue the order of the learned Judge dated 18.2.2003 made in W.P. No. 322 of 2001, wherein the selection list of the 3rd respondent dated 16.12.2000 for the distributor dealership of L.P.G for Palladam area has been set aside and the authorities concerned were permitted to proceed with fresh selection. In the writ petition the first respondent, one of the applicants for the grant of distributorship of L.P.G. for Palladam assailed the selection of list of the third respondent awarding more marks to the appellant besides two others, the 4th and 5th respondents, as arbitrary and against clause (v) of the notification by which applications were called for, for the grant of distributorship.2. The learned Judge on facts and on interpretation of clause (v) of the notification found that the selection list made by the 3rd respondent lacked transparency in awarding marks in the sense that there was no decision or findings with respe...
Jayam Company Rep. by Its Partner, Ramasamy Nadar and Senthil Murugan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC584; 2003CriLJ2890
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above criminal appeals have been preferred by different appellants, who were the complainants before the trial court, the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 in different calendar cases registered against one and the same accused respectively in C.C. Nos. 4219 and 4220 of 2001 and both the above complaints, since came to be dismissed by the trial court, the accused being acquitted of the charges, aggrieved, the complainants in those cases have come forward to prefer the above appeals on certain grounds as pleaded in the grounds of appeal.2. Since the facts and circumstances in both the above cases are similar and the accused are same and both orders are on common grounds, with consent of parties, both the above appeals are decided in this common judgment.3. From the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent as well, it comes to be known that the amount borrowed by the accused fr...
N. Sreedharan Nair and ors. Vs. Mottaipatti Chinna Pallivasal Muslim J ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC129; (2003)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 1972 (85) L.W 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Section 9 of the main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with t...
The Management, Flora Textiles Ltd. Vs. Tmt. K. Karpagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC688
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above revision is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Authority in an application filed to set aside the ex parte award, by putting the petitioner on terms of making payment of Rs. 5,000, The correctness of the said order is assailed in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court erred miserably in awarding payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000 by the petitioner to the respondent in order to give the indulgence of getting the ex parte order set aside. If the application filed under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act by the workman is dismissed for default, in all such cases, a sum of Rs. 100 or 150 will be awarded to restore the application. But, so far as the case of the petitioner herein is concerned, an amount of Rs. 5,000 has been awarded as cost which is...
R. Kasthuri Vs. R. Raveendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad302; (2003)1MLJ738
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.M.A. No. 517 of 1995. The appellant herein is the wife and the respondent is her husband. 2. The husband filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act on the file of District Court, Sivaganga against his wife praying for the custody of their child. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the year 1986, and one male child was born on 11.4.1988. It is the case of the husband that at the instigation of the mother and brother of his wife, misunderstanding arose between them and the wife left the matrimonial home on 2.7.1991 taking the child with her. Subsequently, some mediators intervened to resolve the dispute and the dispute was resolved and she came back to the matrimonial home to join her husband on 13.4.1991 and lived with him. She again left the matrimonial home on 2.7.1991 taking the child with her. The husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 8 of ...
S. Ramesh Babu S/O P.V. Srinivasan Vs. R. Bhaskar S/O Ramu and Vijayab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC676; (2003)1MLJ722
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 14/2000 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 25.9.2000 allowing C.M.A. No. 76/2000 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of Coimbatore reversing the order dated 30.6.2000 in I.A. No. 21/2000 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.2. The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. He also filed I.A. No. 21/2000 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. He took the suit property on lease from the second defendant on 9.12.99 for non-residential purpose, for a period of 11 months. The monthly rent payable is Rs.1,000/- and an advance is also paid. He is manufacturing foundary chemicals and building materials. The founda...
Appandainatha Nainar, Vs. Appadurai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ805
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An oft-repeated question on the construction of a document, whether it is a will or settlement arises in this Letters Patent appeal.2. One Mallinatha Nainar, the first defendant in the suit, executed a document dated 5.6.1972 which was registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Gingee. He thereafter revoked the said document by another registered deed dated 20.8.1980. The plaintiffs, who are the grandsons of Mallinatha Nainar, filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties on the ground that the deed executed on 5.6.1972 was a deed of settlement and Mallinatha Nainar has no right of revocation and he has no right to alienate the properties and the alienation made by him in favour of his another son, the second defendant in the suit and the subsequent sale in favour of outsiders by the second defendant are not valid in the eye of law, and hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit properti...
P. Mohan Son of Late S. Pakkirisamy Pillai Vs. G. Chandrasekaran Son o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ762
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioner is judgment debtor No. 6 and he has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 9.8.2001 made in E.A. No. 103/2001 in E.A. No. 98 of 2000 in E.P. No. 34 of 1988 in O.S. No. 90 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.2. The revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 103/2001 under Order XVI Rules 1and 2 C.P.C. to issue necessary summons to Tmt. N. Dhanalakshmi, G. Naga Pillai and N. Srinivasan to appear before the Court to produce the Original Sale deeds dated 18.6.99 and 21.6.99 and give evidence regarding these documents. The revision petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 22.2.2001 in E.P. No. 34/1988 under Order XXXIV Rule 5 C.P.C and the decree holder had also withdrawn the amount. The decree is fully discharged. The respondent is only auction purchaser and he cannot have any grievance. In fact, the respondent filed E.A. No. 98/2000 for delivery of possession of the property measuring...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »