Chennai Court July 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.
Begum Seeni Pichai Ammal Vs. Janab K. Muthu Mohamed (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ141
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Sub-court. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.10.1987 directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property bearing Door No.30, Sungam Pallivasal Street, Madurai measuring an extent of 49-1/2' x 100' for Rs.46,000/- as agreed between the plaintiff. The case as put forward in the plaint is that the first defendant, after adjusting the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/-, failed to execute the sale deed inspite of her readiness; the suit property is owned by one Mohammed Hussain; he had mortgaged the suit property for a sum of Rs.3,000/- in favour of one Mohammed Abdul Khader under Ex.B.2 on 8.6.1960; the plaintiff got an assignment of the said mortgage deed from the legal representatives of Mohamme...
S. Lilly Pushpam Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC168
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The writ petition in W.P.No. 17987 of 1995 is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation to the petitioner and also provide suitable employment to the petitioner in their Department.2. The writ petition in W.P.No. 17988 of 1995 is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the policy amount for the Life Insurance taken by the petitioner's husband late Mr. Hendry in Policy No. 711507366 to the petitioner.3. Mr. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very seriously contended that the death of the husband of the petitioner has been caused only because of the assault that has been caused by the sergeant of the airmen and as such this Court can issue a mandamus to compensate the wife, who lost her husband. However, the fact as to the death caused because of the assault has been very seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respond...
A. Ibrahim, Vs. National Textiles Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondiche ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ122
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1991 rendered in A.S. No. 145 of 1990 by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1989 rendered in O.S. No. 225 of 1984 by the Court of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. Appellants are the defendants 1 and 3 and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26, 096-06 with subsequent interest on Rs. 20, 473/= at 20.5% p.a. from the date of suit till repayment and for costs on averments such as that the second defendant was appointed the selling agent of the plaintiff for sale of the products manufactured by the plaintiff on commission basis for the areas of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry excluding Kanyakumari District during 1979 and they continued to act as the selling agents till recently; that as per the terms of the contract of agency, ...
Senniappa Gounder Vs. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ19
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This revision is brought forth by the defendant in a suit aggrieved over an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.2. After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the materials available, the Court is of the considered view that there is nothing to interfere in the order of the Court below.3. It was a suit for return of the earnest money filed by the respondent/plaintiff alleging that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property was entered into between the parties on 17.9.1987, and since the demand made by the plaintiff was not complied with by the defendant, the owner of the property, there arose a necessity to file a suit for recovery of the earnest with interest. The said suit was interalia contested by the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief, since he has forfeited the right of return of the money; that he was never willing to perform his pa...
Kishorelal Asera Vs. Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments, Rep. by Its Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC209
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff namely Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments., represented by its Trustees, obtained a decree for ejectment from the various shop portions occupied by the defendants in the suit premises bearing Door No. 37 (Old No. 100), Godown Street, Madras-600 001. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the above appeals have been filed. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.2. The facts of the case are as follows:Haji Essa Abba Sait, by Ex.A.1, Trust Deed dated 1.5.1919, dedicated the properties mentioned in the trust deed for the purpose of performing the following charities:(1) Of founding and maintaining a Madarasa for the benefit of members of the Kutch Memon and other Mohammedan communities in Madras;(2) To give them sound religious, secular education in Arabic, Persian, Hindustani according to Hanafi, Shafi, Hambali and Maliki and other religious branches of education that is of special benefit to the members of t...
State, Represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, Cb Cid Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4749; 2003(3)CTC291
ORDER1. Crl. Revision Case Nos. 851 of 2003 and 852 of 2003 are directed against the order dated 13.6.2003, made in Crl.M.P.No. 527 of 2003 and 526 of 2003 respectively on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge, Chennai.2. The prosecution had filed Crl.M.P.No. 526 of 2003 under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure praying that one Madappan, who was at the relevant time working as Industrial Co-operative Officer to be examined as additional witness. In Crl.MP.No. 527 of 2003 the prosecution had prayed for examination of one Balasubramanian, cited as list witness No. 4 (L.W.4) in the charge-sheet and one Pollachi Jayaraman, cited as list witness No. 124 (L.W.124) in the charge-sheet and recalling of P.W.8, Chenninathan. Both the petitions were opposed by the respondents/accused. By the impugned order dated 13.6.2003, the learned Special Judge dismissed both the petitions holding that the prosecution has filed these petitions to fill up the lacuna, belatedly and if the petitions a...
M. Periasamy and ors. Vs. Korrai Kula Kongu Vellalargal Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ30
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Defendants 5 to 21 are the petitioners in this revision. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S. No. 503 of 1994 for a declaration to declare that the suit temples are denominal exclusively belonged to the plaintiff's sect and to restrain the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the management or affairs of the suit temples by granting permanent injunction.2. Pending suit, the petitioners herein were impleaded as defendants 5 to 21 in the suit by way of an application filed by them to implead. The petitioners herein were set exparte on 28-01-1998 on the ground that they have not filed written statement. The petitioners herein have filed I.A. No. 519 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 7 and Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them on 28-01-1998, which was dismissed by the trial court, hence this revision.3. The case of the petitioners before the trial court is that they were unable to file written statement in time si...
Periasamy Vs. K. Periyasamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad75
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The second defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The Plaintiff/1st respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No. 125 of 1991 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal for declaration that he is entitled to use the passage and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right. The Plaintiff/1st respondent herein has sought permission of the Court below to mark certified copies of two sale deeds dated 30-10-1974 and 20-08-1973 which were executed in favour of the first defendant/second respondent herein. The same was objected by the petitioner herein, but the trial court allowed the 1st respondent herein to mark those documents as secondary evidence, hence this revision.2. Mr. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act shall not be applicable unless the party proposing to prove secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or ...
Annavu Chettiar and Thasil Chettiar Vs. the District Revenue Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC501
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Na.Ka.Em5/29142/96 dated 03.04.1998, acquiring the petitioners' nanja wet land in RS. No. 52/2B (0.05.0 Ha.) in Elandurai Village of Tirukoilur taluk, in purported exercise of power under section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 hereinafter called as 'the State Act'. Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is not necessary to notice all such contentions, as in my opinion, the contention relating to lack of jurisdiction of the District Revenue Officer to exercise power under Section 4(1) of the State Act is well founded. Section 4(1) is extracted hereunder:Power to acquire land.- (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publi...
R. Nallusamy Vs. Union of India Rep. by Director Department of Telecom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ215
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner herein is in challenge. While disposing of the original application, the tribunal relied on the order passed by it earlier in a batch of original applications.2. The dispute here pertains to seniority and proper placement in the seniority list. The petitioner had challenged orders pertaining to his fixation at No. 7 in the seniority list of Grade IV Officers and claimed that he being the seniormost was bound to be given the supervisory duties. He had also made a representation, which was rejected by the concerned authorities, requiring the petitioner to file the original application before the tribunal. Needless to mention that the tribunal has also confirmed the stand taken by the department. The basic question here in this case is whether the seniority of the petitioner was properly shown at Sl. No. 7, below the six persons who were admittedly junior to hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »