Chennai Court January 2007 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.
Jagadeesh Vs. B.M. Billan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad334
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against the docket order passed in I.A.No:428 of 2005 made in O.S. No. 137 of 2005 passed by the District Munsif Court, Ootacamund, directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty with penalty to receive the unstamped and unregistered document in evidence, this revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff.2. The mortgage deed dated 5.3.2001 is a document which has to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Yet, the said deed could be admitted in evidence to establish possession only if the same is properly stamped. In that case it has to be valued as per Article 40 of the Schedule-I of the Stamp Act. If it is calculated on that basis, it should have been stamped with Rs. 18,800/= x 11 times of penalty which would comes to Rs. 2,06,800/=. Inspite of time given by the learned Trial Judge the plaintiff/revision petitioner has not chosen to pay the stamp duty with penalty, but has preferred this revision. 3. Learned Co...
K. Krishnasingh Vs. State Rep. by Its Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC434
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 16 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Poochampalli.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a case was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 4(1)(A) r/w 7(1)(c) and 14 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the First Information Report was registered as early as on 04.09.1986 and after completion of investigation the final report was filed in P.R.C. No. 15 of 1993 and later the same renumbered as P.R.C. No. 16 of 2000. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that till date even the charge is not framed against the accused, the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel further submitted that the case was periodically adjourned right from the year 1994 onwards and it was lastly adjourned on 18.11.2004. It is also submitted by the ...
Jagadeesh Prasad Vs. K. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC382; (2007)2MLJ648
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 1604/2003 has been filed against the order of VIII Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai made on 27.8.2003 in R.C.A. No. 369/2001 in RCOP No. 1932/1999.2. C.R.P. No. 1608/2001 has been filed against the order of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made on 1.8.2003 in M.P. No. 737/2001 in RCA No. 369/2001 in RCOP No. 1932/1999.3. The brief facts are as under:The respondent herein filed RCOP No. 1932/1999 against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By order dated 22.3.2001 the rent controller allowed the RCOP and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the rent controller the revision petitioner filed RCA No. 369/2001 and pending RCA No. 369/2001, the respondent as landlord filed M.P. No. 737/2001 under Section 11(4) of the Act and by order dated 1.8.2003, the appellate autho...
Selvaraj (Died) and ors. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC317; (2007)2MLJ1140
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern this second appeal and the cross objection. The second appeal is filed by the defendants and the cross objection is filed by the plaintiff. 2. It was originally a suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 484 of 1996, seeking for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits. On trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. On rejection of the case of the plaintiff, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 10 of 1997. On enquiry of the appeal, the learned District Judge, Villupuram granted the relief in respect of declaration and recovery of possession and also granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per year. Aggrieved the defendants have brought forth this second appeal, while the plaintiff, aggrieved over the disallowed portion in respect of mesne profits, has brought forth cross objection. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the properties originally belonged to one Kuppammal ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Mettupalayam Branch Vs. Rangasamy (Dead),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ791; (2007)1MLJ718
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Udagamandalam in M.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1993 the insurer has filed the above appeal.2. The case of respondents 1 and 2 / claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Arul @ Arulselvam, is as follows:The aunt of the deceased engaged a lorry bearing Registration No. TDS 4147 for transporting her household articles from Coonur to Annur. The deceased as custodian of the household articles loaded the articles in the lorry and travelled in the said lorry as a non-fare passenger. He was seated beside the driver in the cabin of the said lorry. The second respondent was the owner of the lorry and the lorry was driven by the first respondent-driver and the lorry was insured with the appellant herein. While the lorry was proceeding to Annur it went out of control due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and capsized at about 8.30 pm on 01.09.1992 at Gurrency-Coonur R...
industrial Stores Trading Co. Rep. by Its Power Agent Mr. R. Sekar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: III(2007)BC681; [2007]136CompCas462(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The complainant, who has lost his all the three cases in C.C. No. 6223 to 6225 of 1995 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is the appellant herein in all the three appeals. The complaints were preferred under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. In C.C. No. 6223/1995: In the complaint in C.C. No. 6223 of 1995, the complainant would state that the second accused is one of the directors of the first accused-company and the first accused-accused was having business transaction with the complainant-company and that in the said business transaction, the accused owes money to the complainant-company and in order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 10.05.1993, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- bearing cheque No. 114402 and another cheque dated 28.05.1993 bearing No. 114406 for Rs. 30,772.35/- drawn in Bank of India in favour of the complainant. Wh...
Kannathal and ors. Vs. Arulmighu Kanniammal Karuppasamy Thirukoil Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC49; (2007)1MLJ725
K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. Defendants 3 to 8 in O.S. No. 1267 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore who were respondents 3 to 8 in A.S. No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, being aggrieved by the order of remand dated 27.11.1998 made in A.S. No. 1 of 1998 have filed the above appeal.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:In Chettipalayam village, Coimbatore Taluk a Temple known as Arulmigu Kanniamman Karuppasami Thirukkovil is in existence for the last 300 years. The main gate of the Temple faces east. There is also a gate on the west of the rear of the Temple which is invariably closed. There are compound walls on all the sides. The only passage to the Temple is on the north along with the elevated portion of a bund. The Temple is situated to the east of the main Coimbatore Chettipalayam Road. Immediately on the north of th...
G. Annamalai Vs. the Secretary and Commissioner, Education Department, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC462; (2007)3MLJ171
1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.2002 made in W.P. No. 5439 of 1995, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.(a) Appellant was working as Post Graduate Teacher (Tamil) and as Assistant Headmaster (PG grade) in the 4th respondent School. The 4th respondent School is a Private Recognised and Aided School. According to the appellant, the post of Headmaster became vacant in the 4th respondent School on 1.6.1985 and a request was made by the appellant to promote him as Headmaster since he was the senior-most Post Graduate Assistant. However, the 4th respondent management selected and promoted one Anthonysamy as Headmaster, against which the appellant filed appeal before the Director of School Education and on 5.1.1987 the appeal was allowed. The 4th respondent management and the said Anthonysamy challenged the said order of the Director of School Educati...
K. Ramaraj Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and the Secretary, Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ588
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. This is the third of the drone of cases filed for almost the same relief.2. The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to ply the Mini Bus bearing Registration No. TN-37-V-8065 on the route, 'Ramachettipalayam to Town Hall' via, A.R.M. Kalyanamandapam, Kunniamuthur and Ukkadam, till such time the road conditions are made good on the original route, forthwith.3. On 27.10.2006, this writ petition was moved before this Court. According to the Order-sheet, a final order was passed at 11.00 a.m. Thereafter, at 1.30 p.m. Additional Government Pleader mentioned and submitted that certain clarifications are to be made. Therefore, the Court directed that the matter to be listed on 30.10.2006 for clarification. On 30.10.2006, at the request of the Additional Government Pleader, the matter was adjourned by two weeks for filing counter. The Case was directed to be listed on 13.11.2006. Thereafter, it was listed on 23.11.2006....
Kaliyaperumal, Vs. Pudupettai Chokkanathaswamy and S. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC444
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendants are the petitioners in both the revisions, which are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 471 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Panrutti for possession of the suit property and also for recovery of damages. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff Pudupettai Chokanatha Swami Annathana Sathiram by its power agent N. Subramania Chettiar who subsequently died, is the owner and the defendant's father was the tenant and after his death, defendants 1 and 2 have continued under a oral lease. Since then there was arrears of rent, notice was issued for the purpose of recovery of possession and the suit for possession was filed. 3. The defendants have also filed the written statement, of course questioning the validity of the notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer Property Act apart from many other defences. After the death of the said Subramania Chettiar, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »