Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
M. Suyambukani Vs. Smt. Thayammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ127
Mrakandey Katju, C.J.1. These three writ appeals are filed by three different parties against the same order of the learned single Judge dated 23.09.1998, passed in W.P. No. 10506 of 1991. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case have been mentioned in the impugned order of the learned single Judge, and hence, we are not repeating the same, except when necessary. 4. One Thayammal wife of late A. Chelliah filed writ petition No. 10506 of 1991 alleging that her late husband was employed with the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., a Central Government Undertaking. It was alleged in paragraph-3 of her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that she was married to late A. Chelliah on 02.12.1978 and a son was born out of the wedlock in the year 1979. It was further alleged that from 08.02.1985 her husband started living with another lady, whose name is Suyambukani. It was alleged in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the petitioner's affidavit that since ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sinnamani and anr. Vs. G. Rajashankar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC126
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This Revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 753 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The suit was filed by the first respondent against 7 defendants for declaration that the suit property belongs to him absolutely and for other reliefs. The petitioners are defendants 3 and 4. The first respondent/plaintiff is the son of A.M.M.S. Ganesa Nadar and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are his Brothers. The 4th and 5th respondents are son of the 2nd respondent, and 6th respondent is the son of the 3rd respondent.3. In order to obtain a declaration that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, the suit was initiated. An ex parte decree was passed on 16.3.2001. The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 753 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The first respondent contested the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of CochIn Ltd. Vs. Kamal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC342
R. Banumathi, J.1. The plaintiff-bank has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,98,041.41 together with interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent, per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and costs.2. The suit is filed against the principal debtors-first defendant and the guarantors-defendants Nos. 2 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant died ; his legal heirs are impleaded as D-5 to D-7.3. The first defendant-proprietor of M/s. Blue Bay Food Exports was dealing in exports of sea foods to foreign countries. The first defendant approached the plaintiff-bank for packing credit facility. At the request of the first defendant, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have deposited their title deeds with the intention to create equitable mortgage as security for repayment of the loan amount by the first defendant under the scheme of packing credit facility to the limit of Rs. 5,00,000 (rupees five lakhs only) on November 18, 1982. The first defendant had execu...
Tag this Judgment!Sivanandam and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ65
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The Government approved the draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to 'The Act') in G.O. Rt. No.26 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.10.1975 to acquire an extent of 513.52 acres of land comprised in various Survey Numbers including the Survey Numbers in question for implementing Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The said Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 12.11.1975. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted after serving notices to the land owners. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board decided to exclude an extent of 81.45 acres. The lands belonging to the petitioners are not covered in the excluded lands. The petitioners participated in 5-A enquiry. Section 6 Declaration was made in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 10.11.1978. The Award was passed on 30.7.1981. The lands were taken possession by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 11.8.1981 and ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rangasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC81
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.11.2001, by which writ petition nos. 17187 & 17188 of 2001 were dismissed by a common order. 2. The facts in detail are given in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence, we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.3. It is evident from the facts that the petitioners/appellants were allotted houses by the respondent/board, and the appellants took possession of the same on 02.01.2001 in pursuance of allotment orders dated 05.12.2002 and 17.11.2000 respectively. The allotment orders state that the selling price of the houses including the tentative costs of the land in respect of W.P. No. 17187 of 2001 is Rs. 5,79,500/- and in respect of W.P. No. 17188 of 2001 it is Rs. 10,76,000/-. The orders further state that the petitioners are liable to pay difference in costs if any for the land later consequent on the finalisation of the land c...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Natarajan and ors. Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad343
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This Writ Petition, which is a pro bono publico, has been filed by the petitioners on behalf of three village panchayats, seeking for quashing of the order of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, first respondent herein, dated 10.04.2003, permitting the other respondents for the scheme of installation of pump wells in three villages for drawing water and to give water supply for drinking purpose to Mandapam Town Panchayat.2. According to the petitioners, the officials, namely, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ramanathapuram, second respondent herein, attempted to put up sucking pump well in the area near to the villages, in order to get water to be brought to Mandapam Town Panchayat. The village people objected and agitated over the said action. They also made a representation and passed resolutions through Panchayats and sent the same to the first respondent District Collector. Despite the same, the work proceeded. Theref...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Rep. by Sub-regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ189Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6.1.1999. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary. 3. There was an allegation against the petitioner that while in service of the appellant Corporation, he was involved in causing shortage of paddy for the amounts mentioned in the show cause notices. Show cause notices were given to him dated 17.3.1987 and 2.6.1988 to show cause why the value of the shortages in excess over the allowable norms should not be recovered from him. In reply to the show cause notices, the respondent in these appeals furnished his explanation. The explanation states:-'I have been asked to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.11,384.39 should not be recovered from me towards the cost of transit...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajagopal (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC399; (2005)2MLJ224
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1993 passed in A.S. No. 230 of 1992 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1991 made in O.S. No. 825 of 1989 by the District Munsif, Cuddalore, the first defendant has filed the above second appeal.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:a. The suit property mentioned in 'B' schedule originally belonged to Govindasamy Naidu and his two brothers. In an oral partition, 'B' schedule property was allotted to the said Govindasamy Naidu and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After the death of Govindasamy, his only son Ramamurthy, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was in possession and enjoyment or the same. The said Ramamurtny also died three years prior to the date of filing of the suit leaving behind his wife and five children. After the death of Ramamurthy, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit pr...
Tag this Judgment!D. Loganathan Vs. Venkatachalapathy Metal Works and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad260; (2005)2MLJ103
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the Assignee Decree-Holder and the revision is directed against the dismissal of R.E.A. No. 114 of 1999 in Sub Court, Salem O.S. No. 139 of 1976, on the file of the Sub Court, Nammakkal as per order dated 25-10-2000.2. The petition R.E.A. No. 114 of 1999 was filed to recognise the petitioner as assignee of the decree in the above suit and transfer the decree to the Sub Court Sankari under Section 39 and Order 21 Rule 16, C.P.C. 3. The petition is filed as follows:- The Sub Court, Salem passed preliminary decree on 28-11 -1978 in O. S. No. 139 of 1976, as per which the suit in respect of the 'A' schedule immovable property and the claim against the second defendant and also passing personal decree against the defendants 1 and 2 to 5 was dismissed. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, this Court modified the decree of the trial Court in A. S. No. 402 of 1982 dated 26-6-1992 as to one of mortgage decree in respect of 'A' and...
Tag this Judgment!M.O. Kandasamy Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Union Cabin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC124
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed as a pro bono publico, seeking for a declaration, that criminal proceedings whatsoever shall not be instituted or continued against the Protestant Hindus Rajarishi Sankarachariar Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal of Kanchi Peetam or Arya Nagarjuna Shurie Sasai of All India Buddhist Mahasabha, Nagpur, or Sardarini Jagir Kour of Shironmani Gurudwara Prapanda Committee, Amritsar, or a Christian or a Muslim Head from any Court, during their occupation of offices, attracting the conventionality of Article 361(2) and 26-B of the Constitution of India.2. On the basis of the above prayer, elaborate arguments are advanced by Mr.MO.Kandasamy Singh, party-in person.3. We have heard the petitioner patiently for about 45 minutes.4. When this Court questions Mr.Kandasamy Singh, party-in-person, as to the power of this Court to give such a declaration, he is not able to give proper answer. In our view, the prayer, as referred to above, is qu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »