Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-19-1998
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ753
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above appeal suits, which are connected matters are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 30.10.1984 made in respectively O.S.Nos.69 of 1979 and 412 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, thereby dismissing the suit in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 for specific performance, but ordering the defendants therein to return the advance amount of Rs. 16,000 to the plaintiff without interest and decreeing the other suit in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 directing the defendant therein to surrender possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs, which is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties.2. So far as the subject matter and the rival parties in both the suits are concerned, they are one and the same. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 is the defendant in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 and the defendants in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 412 of 1983. In fact, the suit in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 had been originally filed in the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-21-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC236; (2001)8SCC676; AIR2001SC2861
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In these appeals, in the tight of the contentions raised by the parties, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirappalli in this State of Tamil Nadu, should seek approval of AH India Council for Technical Education to start technicalcourses in the University or to start a Technical Institute to conduct technical courses. For convenience, hereafter we will refer to the said University as 'University' and the All India Council for Technical Education as 'Council'.3. Writ Appeal No.1308 of 1998 is filed by the University and Bharathidasan Institute for Engineering and Technology. Writ Appeal No.1309 of 1998 is filed by a student, who was respondent No.4, impleaded in the Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 and Writ Appeal No.1326 of 1998 is filed by another student, who was not a party in the writ petition, but after seeking leave from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-25-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ624
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This Revision, is preferred by K. Veeriah, the petitioner herein/husband, as against the order passed in Cri. R. P. No. 29/96 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai allowing in part, while modifying the order passed in the application for maintenance in M. C. No. 1/95 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.2. Muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/ wife, filed an application claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for herself and for her minor children respondents 2 to 4. The lower Court passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4 minor Sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that those children are living with the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-1998
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ133
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2417 of 1998 arises against the grant of ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 11940 of 1998 in O.S. No. 5083 of 1998, on the file of XI Assistant, Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, C.R.P. No. 2418 of 1998 also arises against an ad-interim order passed by the very same Court in I.A. No. 10962 of 1998 in O.S. No. 4721 of 1998. Both these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the person affected by the interim Order is the same, viz., National Council of Y.M.C.As. of India represented by its General Secretary 2. In C.R.P. No. 2417 of 1998, the impugned Order has been passed in I.A. No. 11940 of 1998. In that I.A., petitioner Plaintiff (Dr. C. Raja Singh Warrior) prayed for the grant of an-interim in-junction restraining-National Council of Y.M.C.As. from convening the Executive Committee Meeting at Y.M.C.A. College of Physical Education, Nandanam, Chennai-35. In that case, petitioner claims that he has been elected as Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-25-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC613
ORDER1. The Second Appeal arises out of the judgment of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A.S.No.292 of 1983 dated 25.1.1985, confirming the judgment of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S.No.1996 of 1980, dated 24.2.1983. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.2. The suit was filed for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property after the receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,000 and in default by the defendants on their behalf, a deed of conveyance may be executed by the court, in favour of the plaintiff.3. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to the defendants and an agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of the properties to the plaintiff as evidenced by document dated 26.7.1973. The agreement provided that the sale consideration of the property was Rs. 18,000 and a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-22-1998
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ116
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the lower Court in O.P.No. 137 of 1998 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City civil court, Chennai and four miscellaneous petitions are filed along with these revisions.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revisions could be summarised thus: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement regarding supply of two Wind Turbine Generators on 25.9.1995 after agreeing to the schedule of repayment and also consequence in case of default. Clause 24-A of the hire purchase agreement provided for an arbitration clause which reads thus:All disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of this hire purchase agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-19-1998
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ214
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Is the word 'ENERJASE' would deceptively similar to the word 'ENERGEX'? This is the question posed before us.2. The appellant, Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., having its office at Ahmedabad, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical medicinal preparations, is the plaintiff. The respondent, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd., having its office at Chennai, who is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical medicinal preparations, is the defendant.3. The appellant filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from infringing plaintiff's registered trademark in respect of infants and invalid foods by use of the offending trade mark 'ENERJASE' or any other trade mark which is deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'ENERJEX'. In the said suit, it is also requested for grant of a permanent injunction re-straining the respondent from selling or dealing i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1998
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ127
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same, the appeals may be disposed of by the following common judgment.2. Defendants in O.S. No. 531 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants in A.S. No. 258 of 1084. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 489 of 1980 on the file of the same court is the appellant in Transfer Appeal No. 837 of 1991.3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 489 of 1980 is briefly stated hereunder : According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Koothan Servai, grand-father of the plaintiff, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. The said Koothan Servai had only two daughters, namely, 2nd defendant-Koothayi Ammal and one Vellai Ammal. Koothan Servai had no male issues. He had given Koothan Ammal and Vallai Ammal in marriage long ago and had given them sufficient cash and customary presents and married them well. Even during Koothan Servai's life time, the rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1998
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ695
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petition is filed to quash the common award passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 305 of 1981 and in the Claim Petition No. 59 of 1981, both dated 12.7.1985 by issuing a writ of certiorari.2. The petitioner was an employee of the second respondent concern. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the police department and after his retirement he joined the service of the second respondent firm on 1.8.1972. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the founder Director of the second respondent establishment one late J.W. Devasahayam and the petitioner were colleagues in the Police Department, and since the petitioner was the skilled person he was employed to do technical, manual and clerical works. The case of the petitioner is that he was assisting the Director in all aspects of the working of the establishment of the second respondent concern, though he was designated only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-22-1998
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ283
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioners seek for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, made in G.O.Ms.No. 466, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 15.3.1988 and published in dailies on 17.3.1988 and Section 6(1) declaration under the act made in G.O.Ms.(3D) No. 566, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 20.8.1992, published in dailies on 21.8.1992 in so far as the land of the petitioners are concerned in S.No. 37/20B of an extent' of 4.31 acres of land situated in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District and quash G.O.Ms.No. 3(D) 566, dated 21.8.1992 and to forbear the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the Section 6(1) Declaration of the Land Acquisition Act.3. In brief, under the impugned acquisition proceedings the respondents proposed to acquire an extent of 4.31 acres, located in S.No. 37/20B in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North A...
Tag this Judgment!