Chennai Court January 1970 Judgments

B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi Avergal, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1922)43MLJ264

1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a ryot to set aside a sale of his holding which was held under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Madras Estates Land Act?' It is found as a fact in this case for the purpose of the reference that no notice was given to the ryot by the landholder of his intention to sell. The sale was therefore illegal and Civil Courts of this country have a right to set aside illegal sales unless there is some statutory provision to prevent them from doing so. It is therefore necessary to look at the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 to see if the Civil Courts are precluded from setting aside such a sale. Under Section 213 'Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any proceedings taken under colour of this Act...shall be at liberty to seek redress by filing a suit for damages before the Collector' and then Sub-section 2 says 'This section shall not be deemed to bar any right of action in a Civil Court in...

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary to Governme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)1MLJ508

ORDER1. Originally, the Writ Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of as the respondents in the writ petition, inspite of several adjournments and enough time having been granted, did not file any counter. In fact, on 31.7.1998 time was granted for filing counter by four weeks. Again, on 28.8.1998 further time was granted by two weeks. On 15.10.1998 matter was finally adjourned by four weeks for filing counter. Even after that there was no counter filed and on 12.11.1998 the following order came to be passed:'Inspite of several adjournments for filing counter, till date no counter has been filed. Accepting the allegations made in the petition for direction, there will be an order as prayed for in the direction petition.'The direction petition was for grant of pension to the members of the first petitioner/Sangam pending disposal of the main writ petition. Thereafter, the respondents woke up and came up with an application for review in RA.No.60 of 1998. The Review Application as well as ...

Omayurupagam Mutt (Through Its Atheena Karthar Umamaheswarar Sivachari ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1922Mad407; (1922)42MLJ144

William Ayling, Officiating C.J.1. The facts of this case are fully and clearly set forth in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and it is unnecessary to recapitulate them.2. It presents some difficulty owing to the peculiar circumstances and the vague nature of the plaint; but after the best consideration I can give I think the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct.3. As he says :--'The suit as framed is for recovery of possession on the strength of mere title ignoring the transaction under which defendants got possession.' It has been suggested in argument before us that it should be treated as a suit for redemption either of the genuine mortgage of 1886 or of the spurious mortgage of 1858 set up by defendant's predecessor in the previous suit and found to be false. Reliance was placed on the Privy Council decision in Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal 38 M.L.J. 313 (P.C.) for the position that in spite of the provisions of S- 49 of the Registratio...

The Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation b ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad572

Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Clark J. arising out of proceedings under Section 38, Companies Act, to rectify the register. The respondent company was the applicant and the application was granted by the learned Judge. The substantial prayer in the application was in these terms:'Why the share register of Jawahar Mills Ltd., should not be rectified by restoring the name Shah Mulchand & Co. Ltd., to the said register in respect of 5000 shares numbering 15048 to 20047.'Jawahar Mills Ltd., are the appellants in this appeal. The application was filed by the liquidator of Shah Mulchand and Co, Ltd., Salem, which was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court in O. P. No. 199 of 1944.2. Jawahar Mills Ltd., the appellant, is a company registered under the Companies Act. Shah Mulehand and Co. Ltd., were the managing agents of Jawahar Mills Ltd., from the starting of the company till 30-6-1939 on which date they resigned the managing agency. On that day Sh...

L.Palaniappan Vs. the Additional Registrar, (Marketing, Planning and D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(3)CTC46

ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in RC.No.153745 of 1990/SF-1 dated 21.2.1991 and RC.No.253098 of 1989 SF-a dated 26.4.1990 and that of the second respondent made in RC.No.305 of 1982 (G) dated 11.4.1986 and Rc.No.305 of 1982 (G)-A dated 30.9.1985 and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Supervisor in the Co-operative Central Bank Kumbakonam and was posted at Kolapadu Village of Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thanjavur District. Thereafter he was transferred to the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society as the Secretary and as on the date of filing of the writ petition he was working as Secretary. Aymoor Primary Co-operative Land Department Bank, Aymoor. Vedaranyam Taluk, Thanjavur District. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Secretary in the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, on the d...

Anglo-american Direct Tea Trading Company Ltd. (Represented by Pachama ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1970)ILLJ481Mad

ORDERAlagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner is the management of Pachamalai estate, Valpami. It held a domestic enquiry against seven of its female workers and one male worker in respect of an incident that took place on 6 August 1966 in its tea gardens. The women workers were reported to have refused to pluck in the rows allotted to them and to have abused and assaulted the assistant manager and assistant conductor. It is not necessary to refer to the case of the male worker because he was prosecuted is a criminal Court and convicted and his dismissal by the domestic tribunal has also been upheld by the labour court and there is no writ petition on his behalf in this Court The charges against the women workers were:(1) under standing Order 23(1), ' wilful insubordination, disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others of any lawful and reasonable orders of a superior,(2) under standing Order 23(11), ' riotous and disorderly behaviour.' and(3) under statnding Order 23(12), 'any a...

Apsara theatre Krishangiri, Dharmapuri District Rep by Licensee K. Ind ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(4)CTC43

ORDER1. In both the above writ petitions, the petitioner's C form licence issued under Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been suspended by the Licensing Authority for 10 days and 15 days respectively for certain alleged violations and the said penalty was subsequently, on appeal reduced to 3 days and 5 days respectively.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Licensing Authority has not conducted any enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice and failure to conduct such an enquiry amounts to refusal of giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment which is not only permissible under Section 7(2) of the Act, but also violates the principles of natural justice.3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent produced relevant files relating to the above writ petitions and contends that section 7(2) of the Act does not contemplate any personal hearing much less an enquiry and there...

P.K. Chinnasamy Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Execution Circle, Twa ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1989)2MLJ415

Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the two Revisions require a common disposal, because they arise out of a common judgment of the Court below, though in four different proceedings. There were arbitration proceedings between the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, and P.K. Chinnaswamy, hereinafter referred to as the contractor, with reference to the works executed by the latter. The arbitrator rendered two awards, because the controversy stemmed out of two contracts. The arbitrator passed awards ton 12.6.1980. The contractor filed O.P. No. 131 of 1980 before the Court below to pass a decree in terms of the award in respect of one contract. The Board filed O.P. No. 173 of 1980 to set aside that award. The contractor filed O.P. No. 132 of 1980 to pass a decree in terms of the award in respect of the other contract. The Board filed O.P. No. 172 of 1980 to set aside the award in respect of that contract. The Court be...

Gunasekaran Vs. Ramachandran (Deceased Mrs. Kala, Prabhu,

Court: Chennai

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 17.12.2009, made in I.A. No. 359 of 2009, in O.S. No. 108 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur.2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition is the defendant in the suit, in O.S. No. 108 of 2002, filed by the respondents. The respondents had filed the said suit, praying for a decree for specific performance of agreement for sale, dated 3.6.2001. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 359 of 2009, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to send the document, dated 3.6.2001, which is the agreement for sale, marked as Ex.A-1, to obtain an expert opinion.3. The trial Court, by its order, dated 17.12.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner stating that the application had been filed, belatedly. The trial Court had also stated that the petitioner, as the defendant...