Chennai Court December 2006 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.
K. Palaniswamy and Vs. S.B. Subramani and J.K. Jawarappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC300; (2007)1MLJ645
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed a suit for declaring the sale deeds document Nos. 238, 239 and 276 of 2000 executed by the first defendant/second respondent herein in favour of the second and third defendants/petitioners herein as null and void and unenforceable and would not bind on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction against the first and second defendants from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the first respondent in the suit schedule property.2. The defendants 2 and 3/petitioner herein raised a contention that the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid and suit has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.3. According to the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3, the sale deeds have been executed by the second respondent/first defendant. That factum has been explicitly stated in the written statement. But in spite of that, without seeking for cancellati...
M. Udhayabanu Vs. K.S. Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ246
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Application No. 3783 of 2006 has been field by the applicant, mother of the minor child Raghav, praying this Court to modify the earlier order of this Court dated 1.10.2004 made in Application No. 560 of 2004, viz., instead of interim custody granted for alternative Saturday from 10.00 am., to Sunday 12.00 Noon, to grant interim custody once an a year for is days or the days as may be fixed by this Court during the annual vacation of the school in which the minor child is going to study.2. Application No. 3539 of 2006 has been filed by the applicant, mother of the minor child Raghav to permit the applicant to apply and get a passport for the minor child as the mother, guardian and custodian of the child.3. The Original Petition No. 56 of 2004 has been filed by the father of the minor child to declare the father as the de-jure guardian of the minor child and for directing the mother to hand over the custody of the minor child to him.4. By earlier order dated 1....
R. Sivasubramanian Vs. S. Krishnaveni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ382
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner/husband has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.2.2004 made in F.C.O.P. No. 85 of 2002 on the file of Family Court, Salem.2.1. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife took place on 28.4.1993 at Vasavi Kalyana Bhavanam, Shevapet, Salem as per Hindu rites and rituals. According to the petitioner, the marriage was not consummated as the respondent was not willing and the respondent treated him with disrespect and she often scolded him using filthy language and only after persuasion, the respondent came to live with him, but within a short period, she left the matrimonial home along with her brothers. 2.2. On the other hand, the respondent wife denied all the allegations. According to her, she behaved as a dutiful wife and she never abused her husband, but, it is the petitioner/husband who asked her to get a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents and ill-treated her. 2.3. On the side of petitioner, P.Ws....
N.M. Subramaniam Vs. Nagamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC240; (2007)1MLJ564
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order and decretal order dated 31.3.2004 passed in M.C.No. 113 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ordering interim mainterance of Rs. 500/- per month payable by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife.2. Even at the outset, we may say that the above appeal is not maintainable in law, since by the Family Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Central Act 59 of 1991), no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974). For the purpose of convenience, it is apposite to refer Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which reads as follows:19. Appeal - (1)...(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Mumtaj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1202
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.8.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2880 of 2000, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Fifth Small Causes Court, Chennai has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,50,000 (rupees twelve lakh fifty thousand) with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum, for the death of one Feroz Khan, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 22.4.2000 near a junction at Sathiyavedu Road and G.N.T. Road.2. The brief facts are:2.1. At about 12 hours on 22.4.2000, when the deceased Feroz Khan was returning after his work from Bharath Textiles Proofing Ltd. towards Kavarapettai in his Bajaj scooter bearing No. TN 04-C 6033 near the junction of Sathiyavedu Road and G.N.T. Road, a lorry belonging to the respondent No. 5 bearing registration No. TN 22-X 4770, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Bajaj scooter driven by the decea...
Saraswathi Engineering Works Vs. Chief Engineer, Distribution, Vellore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad198
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. With consent of the learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the first respondent for supply of certain materials and the first respondent placed purchase orders on the petitioner, but the petitioner could not supply the materials, hence the first respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 1,63,519/- as liquidated damages from the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to pay the liquidated damages in ten instalments and paid a sum of Rs. 16,500/-on 8-3-2004 towards the first instalment out of the ten, but had not paid the remaining instalments. In such circumstances, on instructions of the first respondent, the second respondent issued the impugned notice demanding payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,47,019/- and unless the amount is paid the petitioner was informed that the amount will be included in the monthly bill for March 2005 in respect of the petitioner's electricity ser...
Kaliammal and ors. Vs. R. Dhanaraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ390
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 22.06.2000 of the Principal District Judge, Erode in C.F.R. No. 11160 of 1999 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 869 of 1993, returning the unnumbered application and directing the Petitioners to produce Succession Certificate for withdrawal of the amount in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 869 of 1993.2. 1. The Revision Petition arises out of the following facts:The Petitioners are Widow, Sons and Daughters of one Arumugam. The said Arumugam sustained injuries in a Motor Accident. He filed a claim Petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 869 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Court, Erode claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the Respondents. After contest, an award of Rs. 85,000/- was passed on 30.09.1997 in favour of the injured claimant - Arumugam and no appeal was filed against the same.2.2 The said Arumugam died intestate on 11.08.1998 leaving behind the Petitioners as his legal representatives. The entire amount has been...
Sargunam Vs. V.R. Jayasingh and V.R. Jayakumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC399
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Appellant herein, who lost his case before the courts below in all the three suits, is the Appellant in all these Second Appeals.2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant herein is referred to as the Appellant in all these Second Appeals and the Respondents in SA. Nos. 723 and 724/1996 and the Respondents 3 and 4 in SA. No. 725/96 are referred to as the Respondents 1 and 2. The Respondents 1 and 2 in SA. No. 725, viz. Lakshmi Ammal and Vedavalli are referred to by their names. One Gangadaran, who along with Lakshmiammal and Vedavalli executed the sale agreement dated 3.12.1981 in favour of the Appellant herein, died during the pendency of the first appeals.3. The suit in OS. No. 700/1985 was filed by the Appellant herein before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri for registration of the sale deed and recovery of possession, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in AS. No. 42/1992 before the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, filed by the Appellant herei...
L. Mohanan Vs. Mohammed Idris and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC308
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Review Application has been filed against the order dated 12.4.2006 passed by this Court in C.R.P.PD. No. 54/2005.2. The facts are as under:The review petitioner is the 6th respondent who had filed the CRP PD No. 54/2005 challenging the order of the trial court dated 13.12.2004 directing the 1st respondent herein to value the suit at Rs.2 lakhs and to pay a deficit court fee of Rs.9375/-.3. O.S. No. 9869/1990 was instituted by the plaintiff after filing O.P. No. 324/1986 permitting her to institute the suit as an indigent person. The suit is for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 7.1.1985 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st respondent is null and void and illegal. Pending suit, I.A.o.2173/1997 was filed by the review petitioner to implead himself as a party as he purchased the suit schedule property on 10.6.1988 for a sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. I.A. No. 2173/1997 was allowed on 1.9.1997 and the review petitioner was imple...
Mrs. K. Nirmala Vs. Central Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]78SCL324(Mad)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The banker has given credit to the sole proprietress of M/s. Victory Cashews and since there is a default in payment of the loan, proceedings were initiated by the bank, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The original application is pending before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 232 of 2001. 2. In the meanwhile, the Banker, who is the respondent herein, issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002, popularly known as NPA Act read with Proviso Section 19(10) of the DRT Act.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. Heard Mr. V. Manisekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Rajasekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.4. On behalf of the petitioner, a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is cited, wherein it is held that during the pendency of an application filed by the bank before the DRT, the bank...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »