Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments
G. Selvam Vs. B. Rajyalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ385
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum VIII Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.P.No.17 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 filed against the order passed by the Rent Controller cum XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.P.No.566 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.1082 of 1998, the revision petitioner/tenant viz., one G.Selvam has filed this revision petition. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this revision, the following background based upon the material facts have to be taken into consideration. The landlady Rajyalakshmi filed R.C.O.P.No.1082 of 1998 on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation. While it was pending, the landlady filed petition in M.P.No.566 of 2000 under Section 11(4) of the (Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act praying therewith that the tenant has no right to contest the main R.C.O.P without paying the arrears of rent. Consequently, the Rent Controller dismissed the s...
Tag this Judgment!O.M.A. Thyagaraja Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. Tamilselvi (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ427
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by one Thyagaraja Mudaliar being the tenant of the premises in question against the landlady viz., Tamilselvi against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1997 in and by which the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Chengalpattu in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1993 has been set aside and R.C.A. No. 4 of 1997 has been allowed. 2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition can be narrated as hereunder. The premises bearing door No. 109, Mettu Street (Gandhi Road), Chengalpattu Town was originally belonging to one Anusuya. The revision petitioner Thyagaraja Mudaliar is a tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/= for the past many years. Whileso, the said Anusuya sold the said premises in favour of the landlady Tamilselvi through a registered sale deed in the year 1992. Thereafter, the landlady Tamilsel...
Tag this Judgment!O. Fernandes, Co-convener, Coastal Action Network Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC527; (2005)1MLJ184
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner having approached this Court on an earlier occasion raising objections for proceeding with Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, did not succeed, as on the earlier occasion, his contentions were rejected on the ground that as regards the project, public hearings are going on and cause of action arises only when an adverse order has been passed or some action adversely affecting someone's right is taken. It was rejected on the other ground that since no adverse orders have been passed nor action taken against anyone, there is no need to entertain the writ petition at this stage and issue Rule Nisi.2. Now, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that environmental impact assessment order has been passed and thereafter, an order of clearance had been given to proceed with Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project by the Ministry of Environment on 31.3.2005. According to the learned counsel, the order was passed by the authority conc...
Tag this Judgment!The Inspector of Police, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Vs. Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC626
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Crl. A. No. 980 of 1998 has been brought forth by the State aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C. No. 146 of 1997, wherein all the respondents/accused, who were arrayed as A-1 to A-5, were acquitted and Crl. R.C. No. 558 of 1998 has been brought forth by P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, challenging the very same judgment of acquittal.2. A-1 to A-5 stood charged under Sections 120(b), 302 read with 34 IPC. and 302 read with 109 IPC., and A-2 to A-4 also stood charged under Sections 341 and 506(ii) IPC. On trial, all these accused were acquitted. Hence, the challenge before this Court by way of an appeal by the State and a revision by P.W.1.3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal and revision can be stated as follows:-(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and she is living with her husband at Arumbakkam. The deceased was employed as a Peon in Land Ceiling Office, where A-1/first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Vs. Thangaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ119
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.2. The Revision petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent/ defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property with certain ancillary relief in respect of certain immovable property, which was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement, at the first instance, dated 3.8.2004.3. The parties went on trial on the basis of pleadings. It is an admitted position that examination of P.W.1 is on progress and it is reported, he has to be cross examined. At that stage, the defendant has filed a petition under Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement, raising certain pleas, which were not taken in the original written statement.4. The trial Court, receiving objections for that application, namely I.A. No. 106 of 200.5 and by going through the provisions of law, after hearing either side, felt that there is no bar for receiving the additional written s...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.M.A.K. Nataraja Nadar and Sons, Iron Paint and Pipe Merchants and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ222
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The tenants are the revision petitioners.2. The respondent/landlord moved the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 55 of 1984, for eviction of the tenants on the grounds, that the defendants have committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the tenants used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased, that the tenants have committed acts of waste, that the tenants are guilty of such act and conduct, which are nuisance to the occupier, that the building being a residential one, it is required for the occupation of the grandson, since the family is not owning any other residential building in the town and that the building is bone fide required for the immediate purpose of demolition for the purpose of erecting a new building, invoking Sections 10(2)(i)-Wilful default, 10(2)(ii)(b)-different user, 10(2)(iii)-acts of waste, 10(2)(v)-nuisance, 10(3)a(i)-own use and 14(i)(b)-demolition and reconstruction; of Act 18 of 1960 i.e. the Tamil ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusamy and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Through the District Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ122
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below, concurrently, are the appellants.2. The appellants/plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of ayacutdars of Mandalamanikkam Tank have filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from putting up any kind of construction, dam or anicut or bund or otherwise, across of river Gundar, either at Tiruchuli Anaikulam or anywhere on the grounds that Anaikulam Tank is not entitled to receive any water from Gundar, since Anaikulam Tank has its own immemorial source of supply from Kanal Odai, that if any dam is built up that will diminish and deprive the right enjoyed by the plaintiffs, causing irreparable loss and damage and that the Government is not entitled to make any diversion of water, detrimental to the interest of the local right of the plaintiffs, which they have acquired under common law, available to them inherently also, in addition to certain other grounds.3. The suit was op...
Tag this Judgment!Natesan Vs. Sri Balamurugan Finance (Regd.) Partnership Firm, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC539; (2007)1MLJ873
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These revisions are directed against the order of District Munsif, Rasipuram dismissing the petitions filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., seeking to amend the Plaint on the basis of original Cause of Action. The Plaintiff in all the suits is the Revision Petitioner, Since common points for determination are involved in these revisions, all four revisions were taken up together for disposal.2. D-1 is the Finance and other Defendants are the partners of the respective Finance. Case of the Plaintiff is that D-1-Finance had approached the Plaintiff for a loan of Rs.5000, On being requested, the Plaintiff had paid Rs.5000 to D-l finance, for which D-1-Finance had executed suit Promissory Notes. D-1-Finance has made two payments and made endorsements on the reverse of the suit Promissory Note. In spite of repeated demands, since balance amount was not paid, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the balance amount with interest due.3. The first Defendant h...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu, Kaveriammal and Rathinammal Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC675
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenging the judgment of the Court of Sessions, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.111 of 1996, the appellants, who were arrayed as A-1, A-2 and A-3, have brought forth this appeal.2. A-1 stood charged under Section 302 IPC., while A-2 and A-3 stood charged under Section 302 read with 114 IPC. and A-1 also stood charged under Section 506(ii) IPC. The learned Judge found A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty under Sections 302 and 302 read with 114 IPC. and awarded life imprisonment on each of them and in respect of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC. imposed upon A-1, he was acquitted by the learned trial Judge, 3. The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are:-(a) A-3 is the wife of the deceased and A-2 is their daughter. They were living at Echampatti village along with P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased. The deceased had some acres of land, over which, there was a dispute between himself and his neighbour, one Krishnan. A-1 was an associate to the quarrel for...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekaran S/O. Malla Munuswamy Naidu and ors. Vs. V. Doss Naidu S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ473
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.04.2002 passed in I.A. No. 1370 of 2000 in O.S. No. 224 of 1998 by the District Munsif, Ponneri, dismissing the Petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C, refusing to appoint Advocate Commissioner. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.2. Facts necessitated for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:-Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property originally belonged to one Subba Naidu. The said Subba Naidu has conveyed the Suit Property to one Selvamani Mudaliar under a Registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1970. Since the date of purchase, Selvamani was in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property. One Malla Munuswamy Naidu (Father of the Defendants 1,2,4 and 5) and Ramakrishna Naidu and Lingenti Rengappa Naidu have filed the Suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur against the said Selvamani Mudaliar and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »