Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ408
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur dismissing an application filed by the petitioners herein for appointment of a handwriting expert to compare the signatures in the agreement of sale dated 19.8.1981 marked as Ex. A2 and the signature in the receipt dated 30.1.84 marked as Ex. A4 along with the signatures in the admitted documents dated 30.1.84 marked as Ex. A3, on the basis of which the relief was sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs.2. It was a suit filed by the petitioners herein for specific performance seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants to execute a sale deed on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 19.8.81 and the receipt dated 30.1.84. The execution of those documents was flatly denied by the respondents/defendants. On trial, the suit by the revision petitioners was dismissed. Aggrieved plaintiffs have brought forth an appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 2001 pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC329; (2004)1MLJ654
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The three appeals and the Cross Objections are filed against the Land Acquisition Awards passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, Periyar District. A total extent of 156.78 acres of land in Erode and Soorampatty Villages of Erode Taluk were acquired for the construction of houses under the Low Income Group and Middle Income Group Schemes and also for the construction of the Office of the District Collector as well as the District Court Building. 2. In the three appeals, we are concerned with three sets of L.A.O.Ps. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 156, Housing dated 27.2.1973 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14.3.1973. The following lands are covered under these L.A.O.Ps. as per the Reference by the Land Acquisition Officer :L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1984 :Survey (Field) No. Extent 412/15 0.09.5 (0.24 acres)L.A.O.P. No.14 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad254
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The Court is of the view that in order to avoid the avoidable delay, notice to the opposite party is not necessary, and the available materials would be suffice to give disposal to the revision.2. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur dismissing an application to send Ex. A-1 promissory note for comparison of the signatures found therein with the admitted signatures by an expert in the field of handwriting. 3. It was a suit filed by the respondent for a money decree based on a promissory note marked as Ex. A1. Following the written statement filed by the defendant, the revision petitioner herein, issues were framed. The trial has actually started. It is pertinent to point out that the plaintiff's evidence was over. When the defendant was about to march his witness in order to prosecute his defence, the instant application was filed by the defendant seeking for sendi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ103
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8/86 on the file of District Munsif, Ramnad, whose suit for partition was on reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial court, was dismissed in the first appellate Court, against which the Second appeal was preferred.2. The averments found in the plaint are as follows:The suit property belonged to one Nalla Meera Ravoothar, from whom his second wife Kadar Beevi purchased it on 23.8.1915 and was in enjoyment thereof. Her only son Varusai Mohammed predeceased her. Kadar Beevi also died in 1949. The issues of Varusai Mohammed are Tayub Khan, the plaintiff, Hajee Mohamed Zackariya, the fourth defendant and one Syed Mohammed, whose wife was the first defendant and children are second and third defendants. After the death of Kadar Beevi, Syed Mohammed and the fourth defendant were commonly in enjoyment of the suit property and assessment was also made only in the name of brothers. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to one fourth share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)BC179; [2004]118CompCas290(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. A judgment of acquittal made by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in a criminal appeal which arose from an order of conviction by the trial Court namely Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur in a complaint under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, is under challenge.2. The appellant before this Court filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act with the following facts:The respondent who was originally the accused before the trial Court, had money transactions with the complainant, and in that way he owed Rs.70,000/-. He issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 21.4.93 drawn on Indian Bank, Rasipuram. The complainant sent the same for collection on 26.4.93 through its Bank namely Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tiruppur, and the same was dishonoured and returned with the endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. The complainant issued a notice on 12.5.93 under Ex.P3. On receipt of the said notice, the accused made a request to wait for some time and present the same again on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ1192
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was serving as a Secondary Grade teacher under Bishop Corrie Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, represented by 5th respondent. Said school is administered by the Church of South India of Madras Diocese, the fourth respondent and it is partly aided by the Government. Sixth respondent, the Headmaster of the school served a charge memo dated 28.11.1995 alleging inter alia that the petitioner had misbehaved with a girl student and had abused his profession and failed to maintain discipline in the class room. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Thereafter he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Seventh respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his report containing findings against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 25.3.1996. The petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the appeal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004CriLJ450; (2003)3MLJ323
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are tenants in the property situated at New No. 10, (Old No. 12), Whites Road, Chennai-60 014. It is not in dispute that the property belongs to one Smt. Badrul Arifa, wife of S.A. Jawersha, who had suffered detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The properties of the said S.A. Jawersha as well as the property which stood in the name of his wife Smt. Badrul Arifa were forfeited pursuant to the forfeiture notice in File No. OCA/MDS/209/76, dated 31.8.1976 invoking Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 (for brevity the 'Act').2. Admittedly, there is no complaint against the procedure followed by the respondents under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act for forfeiting the said properties either by the petitioners herein or by the said S.A. Jawersha or his wife Smt. Badrul Arifa. Even though, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ206
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court whereby, the respondents herein were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. The respondents have, however, not challenged the denial of backwages. The case of the three respondents, as is clear from the award, is that they were appointed as 'cleaners' in Mannargudi Branch by the Branch Manager of Cholan Roadways Corporation. Their further case was that they were to attend daily for cleaning the buses for which they used to be paid Rs.8/- per day. They further pleaded that on or about 1-6-1987, they were informed by the Branch Manager that they were removed from the service on the instructions of the Managing Director. They had pleaded that they had worked more than 240 days in the year 1986. They, therefore, sought their reinstatement by approaching the employer-Corporation and ultimately approached the Labour Officer and, on failure of the conciliation, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(2004)BC317; [2004]121CompCas146(Mad); 2003(4)CTC222
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The second defendant-Reserve Bank of India in O.S. No. 9566/85 is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1906/2002, the third defendant-Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1820/2002. Both the revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the I Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 9566/1985.2. The brief facts of the pleadings before the Trial Court are as follows. Thiru Mohamed Hussain Sulaiman, the first respondent in these revision petitions filed O.S. No. 9566/85 claiming himself to be a person appointed by one Chelliah Nadar to transfer his funds of Rs. 45 crores from Burma to one of the branches of the Reserve Bank of India at the time of World War No. II during 1944. According to him the money belonging to Chelliah Nadar of Burma was transferred to one of the branches of Reserve Banks of India at New Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay or Madras by his own efforts on an agreement between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad57; (2003)3MLJ229
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in all the three appeals. A.S. No.101 of 1988 is an appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.187 of 1983 for probating the will. Tr.A.S. No.375 of 2000 is filed against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.73 of 1984 for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a mandatory injunction and vacant possession. Tr.A.S. No.376 of 2000 is filed against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.177 of 1985 for damages of Rs.800/- for the trees cut and removed. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial court. The plaint suit properties originally belonged to one Duraisamy Pillai. The said Duraisamy Pillai executed a document styled as trust deed (Ex.B.1 = Ex.A.17) on 8.7.1937 in favour of Aruldoss Pillai, the first defendant in the suit, dealing with a house, which is the plaint schedule property and three other businesses. Aruldoss Pillai filed a suit O.S. No.71 of 1945 a...
Tag this Judgment!