Chennai Court June 1980 Judgments
Sreenivasan Chettiar Vs. R.M. Kalyani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad214
ORDER1. The point debated in this civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant who figures as the petitioner herein is, whether the Appellate Authority functioning under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed there under has powers to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a Pending appeal. The respondent herein filed an application in R. C. 0. P. No. 655 of 1977 against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that she required the building in the occupation of the Petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The building, according to the respondent is an old one and consists of several tenements. Claiming that she had the means to out up the construction and had also submitted a plan for the Proposed -building and that she required the building in the occup...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswamy Nadar Vs. Ananthappa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ92
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The question is whether the time taken in the lower Court for depositing the printing charges called for, has to be excluded or not while computing the limitation in filing appeals to this Court. Rule 135(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, governing compulsory printing of judgments and orders, allows seven days' time from the date of notice for a party to deposit the amount called for, for the purpose of printing the judgment. In this case, the printing charges were called for by the lower Court on 28th October, 1978 and the printing charges were deposited on 4th November, 1978. Admittedly the printing charges have been deposited within seven days as allowed by the Rule. In re, Javvaji Venkateshwarlu 1. : AIR1974AP319 , it is stated as follows:As is indicated in Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, where the copy applications are not accompanied by requisite number of stamp papers or requisite amount of printing charges, the Civil Rules of Practice contemplate...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasan Chettiar Vs. R.M. Kalyani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ408
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The point debated in this civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant who figures as the petitioner herein is, whether the Appellate Authority functioning under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder has powers to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a pending appeal. The respondent herein filed an application in R. C. O. P. No. 655 of 1977 against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that she required the building in the occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The building, according to the respondent, is an old one and consists of several tenements. Claiming that she had the means to put up the construction and had also submitted a plan for the proposed building and that she required the buil...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India (Agricultural Production Divn.) Wit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ452
V. Sethuraman, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Fourth Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 4534 of 1972. The plaintiff submitted its tender in response to an advertisement issued by the first defendant, for purchase of four items of Nutmegs with shell, Nutmegs without shell, Maco and Betelnuts. The total amount for which the plaintiff tendered came to Rs. 4,44,867. The plaintiff sent a demand draft for Rs. 44,487 being ten per cent of the value of the goods agreed to be purchased by him. The first defendant accepted the plaintiff's offer in relation to the second item, namely Nutmegs without shell, which was stored at Bombay. Out of this amount Rs. 26,409.65 due as and by way of deposit relating to the accepted quantity of the tender was retained and the balance was refunded. As a condition precedent for taking delivery of the goods, sales-tax was demanded by the first defendant and the plaintiff protested that it was contrary to the te...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. the Management of Bhuvaneswari Pulverising Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ458
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a general assistant in the Bhuvaneswari Pulversing Mills, a partnership firm from 11th September, 1973 on a monthly salary of Rs. 250 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 300 per month. In 1974 one of the partners of the firm tiled O.S. No. 4710 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for dissolution and rendition of accounts. Pending disposal of the suit, an advocate-receiver was appointed to manage and carry on the business of the firm.2. On 31st March, 1975 the advocate-receiver without any justification terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from the 1st April, 1975 on ground of economy. However the receiver employed one Rengachari after terminating the services of the petitioner.3. The petitioner then took up the matter with the Labour Officer, Madras, who initiated conciliation proceedings. Conciliation having failed, the Labour Officer sent his failure report to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Stone, a Partnership Firm and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad82
Ismail, C.J.1. A single point regarding the validity of Rule. 8-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, introduced by way of amendment with effect from 7th Dec. 1977 arises in all these cases, even though the attack on the validity of the said rule was mounted from different ingles by different counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions.2. Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as follows.-'Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.'Entry 23 of List 11 of the same Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as under:-'Regulation of mines and mineral 'development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union.' The Parliament, with reference to Entry 54 of List I referred to above, enacted the...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswari Metals and Metal Refinery, Carrying on Business in Metal, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1980
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ35
Ratnam, J.1. These two appeals are at the instance of Maheswari Metals Refinery, a registered partnership firm, having its registered office in Bangalore and arise out of two suits, vis., O.S. No. 7679 of 1971 and O.S. No. 3216 of 1968, on the file of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, wherein the appellant, figured as the defendant and as the plaintiff respectively., O.S. No. 3216 of 1968 was instituted by the appellant on 21st June, 1968 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation and also for costs. O.S. No. 7679 of 1971 was instituted by the respondent herein on 10th June, 1971 against the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,291.58 stated to be the loss that has been sustained by the respondent as a result of breach committed by the appellant, of a contract entered into by the appellant with the respondent. The appellant as stated already is a registered partnershi...
Tag this Judgment!India Tyre and Rubber Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC273(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J. 1. India Tyre and Rubber Co. (India) Private Limited, the petitioner in all the writ petitions, has filed W. P. No. 682 of 1977 for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent herein, dated 22nd March, 1977, and to direct the second respondent to implied the petitioner in Appeal No. 891 of 1976 on his file. W.P. Nos. 1449, 1450 and 1451 of 1978 are filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the second respondent from taking up and considering Appeals Nos. 892, 893 and 894 of 1976. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner-company carries on business in the sales of tyres and rubber products. It also holds a manufacturing licence for tyres and rubber products. On 4th May, 1960, the petitioner-company entered into a contract with Dunlop India Limited, the third respondent herein. Under the said con...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Vs. Sugantha Kunthalambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ572
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Co., Tirucnirapalli, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli. awarding to the respondent-claimants a sum of Rs. 30,000 as compensation for one accident that took place 011 4th March, 1974, at about 3.30 P. M. near Tiruchirapalli junction. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents-claimants claiming an enhanced compensation.2. On 4th March, 1974 at about 3.30 P. M. one T.S. Krishnamurthi who was working as an accountant in Coaching section, Southern Railway at Tiruchirapalli, while crossing the road was hit by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. M/TNY 1878 belonging to one Joseph and as the result of the impact, the said T.S. Krishnamurthi fell down, sustained injuries and died at the spot. On the ground that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by its driver, the legal representatives of the said Krishnamurthi file...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyammal Vs. N. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1980
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ432
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This revision is against an order of eviction passed against a cultivating tenant by an Authorised Officer. The order was in the usual terms. The tenant was directed to pay the rent arrears within a particular date. If he did not pay, then eviction would follow. The implication was that if the arrears were paid, the eviction petition! against the tenant would stand dismissed.2. This order was made on the terms aforesaid under Section 3(4) of Act XXV of 1955 (The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955). The date fixed for payment under the order was 15th September, 1978.3. The tenant's plea in this revision is that it was impossible for her to comply with this time-limit since a copy of the order meant fair her and sent by post by the Authorised Officer was delivered to her only on 18th September, 1978, three days after the expiry of the time-limit4. I must accept this plea without reservation. For, the law does not expect any man or woman to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »