Court : Chennai
1. Whether the right to begin as provided under Rule 1 and 2 of Order XVIII of Civil Procedure Code is really a right or is in the nature of a legal obligation of the plaintiff to produce his evidence at the first instance is the substantial question that arises for consideration in these original side appeals.2.These appeals are directed against the Order dated 10 March 2010 in C.S.No.979 and C.S.No.1111/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the appellant being the defendant in C.S.No.979/2007 and the plaintiff in the subsequent suit, to start with the letting in of evidence.3.The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their status before the trial Court in the suit in C.S.No.979/2007.The facts :-First suit :-4.The suit in C.S.No.979/2007 was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for the following reliefs :-"(a) Declaring that the threats held out by the defendant on September 1 and 3, 2007 that the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The deceased 1st petitioner originally challenged the order of suspension and the charge memo issued to him.2. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that he was appointed as Bank Inspector on 25.07.1968 and after periodical promotion he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.1996. Before that, on 13.08.1996, the 2nd respondent the Joint Registrar passed an order of suspension against the petitioner stating that the enquiry into certain charges against the petitioner was pending. Notice under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was sent on 09.01.1997 and a charge memo dated 19.01.1999 was issued to the petitioner. A reply dated 30.05.2002 was given by the petitioner. Not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer filed the Domestic Enquiry Report dated 19.02.2003. The 1st petitioner was asked to appear before the authorities on 27.12.2004. Thereafter, there was no communication from the authorities and that was the reason ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.8711 of 2010 is filed seeking a direction to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1859 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for alleged offence punishable under Secs.419, 420 and 120-B r/w 420 and 409 IPC.2. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.21428 of 2010 is filed seeking to return the passport of the petitioner bearing No.F2889377 seized during investigation in C.C.No.1859 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3. The petitioner and four others were charged for an offence punishable under Sec.120-B, 419, 409 and 420 IPC. The 2nd respondent preferred a complaint alleging that the petitioner and four others had received a sum of Rs.171,11,11,111/- ( Rupees One hundred and seventy one crores eleven lakhs, eleven thousand and hundred and eleven) towards real estate transaction with regard to properties which had defective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The first petitioner company is a builder and with a view to develop a housing project in the lands measuring about 78 cents at S.No.166/3B3, Kovilambakkam Panchayat, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai, the petitioners have approached the first respondent Bank and obtained a project loan of Rs.40 lakhs on 12.8.1995 for the construction and as security for the loan, the land owners S.Lakshmanan and S.Ramachandran have deposited the title deeds of the property with the first respondent Bank. The project site has been named as 'Sathya Gardens' and the cost of the total project was Rs.1.50 crores, even though it was shown as Rs.88.34 lakhs in the loan proposal submitted to the first respondent Bank. Thereafter, as per the petitioners, since the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board sought to acquire the lands immediately abutting the land which was being developed by them, the proposed purchasers panicked and stopped making the payment towards the purchase of flats and hence the project came to a stands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai dated 20.04.2005 made in Review Application No.3/2004 in M.P.No.7/2002 in Transferred Application No.38/2002.2. 2nd Respondent Bank filed Civil Suit in C.S.No.206/1995 in the High Court, Madras [Original Side] against the Petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.6,39,722.17 on the basis of the credit card. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court was enhanced, the suit C.S.No.206/1995 was transferred from the High Court, Madras to the City Civil Court, Chennai and the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.9113/1995. In that suit, there was an exparte decree and when the Petitioner filed Petition to set aside the exparte decree, the said Petition was allowed on condition that the Defendant [Writ Petitioner] should deposit 1/4th of the suit claim.3. As against the said order directing the Defendant to deposit 1/4th of the suit claim, Defendant has filed CRP.No.836/1999. The said CRP.No.836/199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.O.P.No.2359 of 2010 dated 16.08.2010 appointing Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the property of the Petitioner.2. 2nd Respondent-Lakshmipathy and 3rd Respondent-Somasundari have availed home loan of Rs.10,21,000/- on 24.03.2004 from 1st Respondent Bank and executed various documents and also deposited title deeds of the mortgaged property. The borrowers failed to honour the commitment and so the loan account become Non Performing Asset. By exercising the power conferred on the 1st Respondent Bank under Sec.13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act], 1st Respondent Bank issued Demand notice to the borrowers [1st and 2nd Respondents] on 27.06.2009 to enable them to pay the balance amount of Rs.9,36,281.90 within 60 days from the date of notice and the said notice was duly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No,I, Poonamallee and quash the same.2. The petitioner in both the petitions charged for offences punishable under Secs.120-B and 409 IPC for criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. The brief fact of the case is as follows:3. One N.T. Radhakrishna Mudalir and his wife Girijabai died on 2.10.1990 and on 22.4.2004, respectively,leaving behind 3 sons and 6 daughters. The sons are N.R. Ramakodi, N.R.Padmakodi and N.R. Navakodi. One Sasireka, Gandhimathi, Kasturibai, Renganayaki, Rajamani and Subashini are the daughters. The parents left behind family properties which remained undivided and the first son Ramakodi was looking after the management of the family property. According to the respondents, the said Ramakodi and his wife Chinthamani and one Madhavan entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit breach of trust, executed a settlement deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. C.M.A.No.3103 of 2003 arises out of the award passed in MCOP No.911 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kancheepuram awarding compensation of Rs.26,00,000.00 to the parents for the death of their son Narasimhan in a road accident.2. C.M.A.No.3102 of 2003 arises out of the award passed in MCOP No.910 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kancheepuram awarding compensation of Rs.25,02,320.00 for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent/claimant. Since both the appeals arise out of common award and points for determination are one and the same, both the appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.3. On 21.4.1995, at 10.20 p.m, in Thiruvengadasami Road, Coimbatore Town, the injured claimant G.G. Paranthaman and another person by name Prabhuram were travelling in their car. The car was driven by the deceased Narasimhan. When the car was proceeding in Thiruvengadasami ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the unnumbered Crl.M.P. Dated 30.7.2010 and to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District to suspend the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District made in CC No.21/2004 by judgment dated 21.5.2010 till the disposal of the appeal filed in CA No.35/2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.2. The petitioner herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu and sentenced to undergo two years rigourous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. The petitioner has preferred an appeal in CA No.35 of 2010 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. He filed an application to suspend the sentence in Crl.M.P.No.1785 of 2010 and the same was ordered on 28.5.2010. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This appeal is filed by the borrower challenging the order dated 18.11.2009 in Application No. 6129 of 2009 passed by the learned single Judge appointing an advocate commissioner to seize the vehicle Manitowac Truck Mounted Crame bearing Registration No. TN 59 AH 6711, with Engine No. 84261900 and Chasis No. T52937.2. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant has executed a loan agreement on 31.01.2008 for purchase of Manitowac Truck Mounted Crame 1995 model telescopic mobile crane with the first respondent. Based on the said agreement, the first respondent has advanced a loan of Rs.30 lakhs to the appellant after securing a promisory note and irrecovable power of attorney in favour of the first respondent. The second respondent stood as a guarantor for the due repayment of loan by the appellant. As per the agreement, the appellant has to pay the loan amount in equated monthly instalments for which the appellant has also issued post dated cheque i...
Tag this Judgment!