Chennai Court March 2004 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.
Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group and anr. Vs. Prasar Bharati a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2006)5CompLJ74(Mad)
ORDER1. Even before the batting has started in the much awaited India-Pakistan cricket series, scheduled from 13th of this month, which is a good augury for the relations with our immediate neighbour, which have been under strain since long, the battle has started on our home ground regarding the terrestrial rights to telecast live the said matches. Ten Sports', a business concern, has acquired the global radio and television rights of the series from Pakistan Cricket Board, where the matches are to be played. In lieu of the grant of the said rights to telecast through satellites, Ten Sports has already parted with its rights to Pakistan to telecast the matches by Pakistan Television (PTV) for an agreed price. Now, the public in Pakistan can view the matches through a public service provider. But, in our country, it is a different scene- As already stated above, the global rights, including India, have been acquired by Ten Sports, of course, for a whopping cost of around S 10 million p...
K. Chennimalai Gounder, Vs. C. Iyyasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad336
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur made in AS No. 36 of 1991, wherein the judgment of the trial court in OS No. 544 of 1989 seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to use the service connection 291 of Karumapalayam Village for the purpose of lifting water from common electric motor pump set installed in common well in S.F. 89/1, in their turn of one day out of 3 days and for the consequential permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was reversed.2. The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties:The plaintiffs are the sons of Kandappa Gounder. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the defendants 3 and 4 are brothers and the defendants 3 and 4 are the first cousins of the defendants 1 and 2. The fifth defendant is the father of the defendants 3 and 4. There is a common well situated in SF No. 89/1, wherein the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd and the defendant...
P. Gunabalan, Vs. A. Subbiyan and T. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ362
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The plaintiffs, in a suit for declaratory relief in respect of the passage and consequential mandatory injunction, have challenged the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore made in AS No.214 of 1992 wherein the judgment of the trial court granting decree in their favour was reversed.2. The following facts are noticed in the plaint averments:The plaintiffs are the sons of one Palaniappa Gounder, who was the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.4.1969. He died in the year 1980 leaving the plaintiffs as heirs and they have been in occupation and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs entered into a division of the suit properties under a registered instrument dated 9.6.1990. The suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have sold the same to the fourth plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 3.6.1991. The second defendant was the owne...
indirani and ors. Vs. Sundarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ333
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The plaintiffs, who lost the case before both the courts below in a suit for redemption of mortgage, are the appellants herein.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the children of one Subramani, who died about 11 years ago leaving the plaintiff to succeed his estate including the schedule mentioned immovable property, which was a residential house. It was the ancestral joint family property of the plaintiffs 2,3 and 4 and their father Subramani. On 11.10.1964, he executed a registered mortgage deed by conditional sale in favour of one Varadaraji Mandiri for Rs. 1500/-. The said Subramani had no right to deal with the same separately with Varadaraji Mandiri, since it is a family property. The dealings referred to above was for the family benefit or that of the minors. The plaintiffs 2,3 and 5 are not the parties to the transaction. The suit mentioned properties was mortgag...
Owners and Residents of Middle Income Group Units of Pondicherry, Hous ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC487
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiff in the suits O.S.No. 195 and 196 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner. Both the revision petitions have been directed against the common judgment dated 31.3.2000 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry made in the above suits with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the payment of Court fees relating to the reliefs of (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) claimed in O.S.No. 196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) claimed in O.S.No. 195 of 1994.2. Both the suits have been filed by one Prof. P.K. Chidambaram as the President of the Residents' Welfare Association representing the Owners and Residents of HIG Units and MIG Units of Pondicherry Housing Board, Lawspet, Phase II seeking several reliefs, viz., 1 in number for declaration that the contents of Clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed application form of de...
Sankaran Narayanan Vs. Padmanabha Iyer (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad395
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The first defendant, whose defence plea in a suit for specific performance in respect of an immovable property was rejected by both the Courts below, is the appellant herein.2. The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties.The properties, described in plain 'A' and 'B' Schedules belonged to the first defendant. When the first defendant was a minor, his mother Lakshmiammal entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on his behalf, on 30-9-1960, agreeing to sell 'A' Schedule property in consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. The mother of the first defendant put the plain-' tiff in possession of 'A' Schedule property on the date of the agreement, but, the execution of the sale deed was postponed. Subsequently, when the first defendant became major, he rectified the said agreement and acknowledged his obligation to execute the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff in relation to 'A' Schedule property. The first defendant was also to pay another sum of Rs....
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Rep. by Chairman-cum-m.D.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ694Mad
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 519 of 1989, has chosen to prefer the above appeal.2. The appellant in this writ appeal was the respondent in the writ petition and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in this writ appeal with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the appellant in Re No.H2/63635/84, dated September 2, 1988, and to quash the same. The learned single Judge allowed the petition and directed the appellant-Corporation to regularise the services of the respondent in this appeal at the basic pay of the lowest grade of employees at the lowest pay-scale of the Corporation with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal.3. The respondent was appointed as N.M.R in the appellant-Corporation on December 10, 1978 and he was working in the construction wing on a daily wage of Rs. 15. He was working continuously for m...
Poongavanam Vs. Pandurangan @ Pandu and Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad462
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, wherein the judgment of the trial court in a suit for maintenance and charge over the properties in respect of the maintenance was modified.2. The following short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties:The first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. While the second plaintiff and one Rajendran are their children. The marriage took place 26 years prior to the litigation. The plaintiff was meted out cruel treatment and she was driven away. While so, the first defendant was making an attempt to dispose of the properties. He has executed a sale deed on 18.4.1986 in favour of the second defendant and also a deed of mortgage in favour of the third defendant, but without any consideration whatsoever and they were created only to defeat the maintenance right of the plaintiff, and hence, she has filed the suit for maintenance for a sum of ...
M. Murugan Vs. Queen Jhansi Vetrikodi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)20; III(2004)BC242; [2005]127CompCas934(Mad); 2004CriLJ3184
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate V, Madurai in Crl. M.P. No. 2453 of 2002 in C.C.No.766 of 2001, discharging the respondent of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2.The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows:a)A complaint has been given against the accused/ respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the averment that the cheque issued by the accused/respondent for the discharge of a liability, on presentation the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Payment stopped'. Thereafter a telegram was sent by the complainant/petitioner to the accused/respondent intimating her about the cheque being dishonored on the above said ground. The accused/respondent did not reply within the stipulated time. It has also been stated in the complaint that a statutory notice was issued on 26.10.2001 and the same has been received by the a...
K. Durai Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Devathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC732; (2004)2MLJ551
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Though the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 were served, they have not appeared to contest this Revision. As far as the fourth respondent is concerned, the petitioner has given up the said respondent and necessary endorsement has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. An interesting question has cropped up in this Revision, namely, as to when the wife along with her minor child, who had obtained a decree for maintenance as against her husband as well as the father-in-law, subsequently, joins with the husband and lives in the matrimonial home, begetting another child through him, could it be held that irrespective of the said subsequent re-union of the wife along with the child with the husband, the decree obtained by her would survive for enforcement.3. In the case on hand, the first and second respondents stated to have obtained a decree for maintenance as against the third respondent and his father as early as on 15.12.1986. Pursuant to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »