Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)3MLJ1037
Acts/Rules/Orders: Limitation Act - Section 5; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 9, Rule 13Cases Referred: N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy 1998(II)CTC 533 : 1990-1-LW 739; Shriram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., v. M.Krishnan and Ors. 1999(I)CTC 238; C.Subramaniam v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. By its Chairman 2000 (III) CTC 727; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. 2005(3)SCC 752; The Secretary, Madras Race Club, Chennai v. Saraswathy Kailasam 2007(II) CTC 58; Rathinathammal v. Muthusamy and Ors. 2004 (3) MLJ 36; Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 2003(3)MLJ 709; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575; State of West Bengal v. The Administrator Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749; O.P. Kathapalia v. Lakhmir Singh 1984 (4) SCC 66; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107; M.K.Prasad v. Arumugam 2001(6)SCC 176Disposition: Petition allowedOREDRR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Revision is to the Order of dismissal of the application filed und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR542; 2002(2)BomCR184
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The dispute in the petition relates to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 105/3 now Gat No. 163 situated in the village Nandurkheda, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The land in question belongs to Govind Vinayak Matkari, Shankar Ramkrishna Dahale and Nilkanth s/o Ramchandra Dahale. Since 1951 the land was cultivated by one Mukund Pawar as the tenant thereof on payment of annual rent of Rs. 28/-. Mukund Pawar expired in the year, 1956 leaving behind him five sons namely, Narayan, Pandu, Dattu, Chintaman and Shankar (petitioner herein) as his heirs and consequently, all the sons being major in age at the time of the death of Mukund, inherited the tenancy rights in the said land in equal shares. After the death of Mukund, one Sayabai w/o Bhaurao Awahane, mother of the respondents herein purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 29th October, 1956 and on the same day, she was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(1)CTC130; (2008)1MLJ1123
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1024 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, are the appellants in the above second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above second appeal are set-out below:The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and for directing defendants 1 to 4 to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and for a further direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to pay future mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is their brother; their father-Rangasamy Naidu took a vacant land on lease from S.P.Narasimmalu Naidu Trust, the fifth defendant, for ground rent and put up a super-structure thereon with his own funds; Rangasamy Naidu on his free will and violation, e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The Appellant/Second Defendant has focused the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2005 in A.S. No. 182 of 2005 passed by the Learned 1st Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.2. The First Appellate Court, viz, the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.182 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005 has, among other things, observed that The lease period has expired on 7.3.1994 as per Ex.A.2 Lawyer's Notice. So the receipt of rent after filing of the suit would not amount to assent for continuance of lease. Apart from this, D2 has not taken any steps to continue the tenancy. Now the earlier tenancy has expired and no tenancy agreement was entered into between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff, after the expiry of the earlier tenancy. Moreover, it is very clear that the defendants are irregular in payment of rent. So the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the claim of ejectment is correct and resultantly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
The Appellants/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 and later, after the death of the First Appellant/Second Defendant 4 to 8 Appellants (who have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of the First Appellant/Second Defendant are the Appellants in S.A.No.635 of 1997, filed against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.14 of 1993 dated 14/11/1996 in setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Sirkalai in O.S.No.516 of 1980 dated 30/10/1992. 2. The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1993 filed by the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff has inter alia observed that the Defendants are not entitled to claim the benefits of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (amended by the Act 3 of 1992) and further observed that the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the Defendants and resultantly, allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD535; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)634; 1999(2)ALT296; 1999CriLJ4016
ORDER1. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in a case which was not registered by the Police. The petitioner submits that although there was no Police case registered against him various allegations have been levelled against him by his wife in the Women's Proteciion Cell and there is threat of his arrest. The facts leading to such an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner are stated as below.2. The petitioner got married on 20th November, 1992, After marriage there were some disputes between the husband and wife and according to the petitioner these disputes were not real but were created because of the caste of the petitioner and he was subjected to cruelty, unfounded allegations were made against him, he was intimated and insulted. The petitioner is working as Lecturer in the Deparlmenl of Micro Biology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. He also submitted that the marriage had been performed in accordance with the laws of Christianity and he had also not deman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. Writ Appeal No.1508 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 15.03.2015 in W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014 filed by the first respondent to this Writ Appeal by which judgment the Writ Petition has been allowed directing the respondents to the Writ Petition not to evict or prevent the first respondent from continuing the street vending business at the spot without resorting to the procedure contemplated under the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 or the scheme provided under Ext.P9 Government Policy. W.P(C) No.23374 of 2015 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation praying for a direction to respondents to ensure that the bunk shop owned by the 7th respondent to the Writ Petition (petitioner in W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014) from functioning at its present location in order to facilitate construction of a bus-bay in that place. Parties shall be referred to as described in the W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014. 2. Facts givi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC3658(SC); JT2009(13)SC1; 2009(II)OLR(SC)103; 2009(7)SCALE447:2009AIRSCW5248
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. No. 1709 of 2008 whereby and whereunder an order dated 3.04.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was affirmed.3. Appellant is said to be the owner and in possession of 13 < cents of land in Survey No. 412/1 of Kizhakambalam Village. On or about 09.01.1996, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 3 alleging that the property in question belonged to him. A report was submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police on 12.04.1996 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there existed a dispute over title of the said property by and between the appellant and the respondent No. 3. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the appellant herein was arrayed as `the B party' and the respondent No. 3 herein was `the A party'. By an order dated 9.10.1997, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ465
K. Bhaktavatsala, J. 1. The appellant, who is a Civil Judge of Senior Division Cadre, unsuccessful in W.P. No. 35051 of 1996, is before us challenging the order of dismissal of writ petition in No. 35051 of 1996 by order dated 7-4-1999 (Kazi Mohd. Muzeebulla v. The High Court of Karnataka and Anr., 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 550 : ILR 1999 Kar. 2413) on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The respondents are represented by Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu, Additional Government Advocate.3. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the 'delinquent'.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ appeal may be stated as under.-The respondent 1 on the administrative side had initiated domestic enquiry proceedings against the delinquent by issuing a charge memo dated 18-3-1992. The charges levelled against the delinquent were that when he was a Civil Judge at Gadag during the year 1991, with ulterior motive of conferri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 24.06.2013 passed in four writ petitions. W.A. No.720 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No.25045 of 2006, W.A. No. 728 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 36204 of 2001, W.A. No. 756 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No.35084 of 2001 and W.A. No.775 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 36197 of 2001. 2. The writ petitioners are the respondents in the appeals. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. W.A. No.720 of 2014 is being treated as the leading case and facts giving rise to the writ appeal shall suffice in deciding the issues raised in all the appeals. 3. The petitioners who had filed the writ petition were appointed as members of Ombudsman as per Section 271G(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by Notification dated 29.05.2000. In all, 7 persons were appointed as members of the Ombudsman. All the petitioners joined their offices as members of Ombudsman on 30.05.2000. The provision provid...
Tag this Judgment!