Chennai Court October 1981 Judgments
Zaibunissa Bivi Vs. the Madras State Wakf Board Represented by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ301
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The third defendant in the suit is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, and the plaintiff is the respondent. An exparte decree was passed against the petitioner on 25th May, I968. She filed an application A. No. 1347 of 1977 on 19th July, 1977 after a delay of 8 years and 9 months, for setting aside the exparte decree. This petitioner's contention was that the suit summons was not served on her and the application setting aside the ex pane decree was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree. The trial Court held that there was service of suit summons on the petitioner, and as the application to set aside the ex parte decree was not filed within thirty days from the date of decree, it refused to set aside the ex parte decree against which the present civil revision petition is filed.2. The petitioner was impleaded as the third defendant in the suit as per the order passed in IA. No. 342 of 1968 on 15th February, 1968, In I.A. 659 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Nachiar Vs. the District Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ415
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The petitioner herein presented a document of the year 1978 to the Sub-Registrar, Portonovo, claiming that she was the owner of certain properties in Sirkali and Chidambaram taluks and in 1965, she had created a wakf dedicating all the properties for charitable purpose and in the year 1978, she executed the document in question pra viding for appointment of mutavalli to succeed her and the same was presented to the Sub-Registrar on 1st June, 1978. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar referred the document to the District Registrar, Chidambaram, who has been invested with the powers of the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that he had to take a decision as to whether the document is a settlement requiring stamp duty under Article 58 of the Act or otherwise. Since the document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Portonovo, a Public Officer, for registering the instrument, the Sub-Registrar has impounded the do...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Nachiar Vs. the District Registrar, Chidambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad19
1. The petitioner herein presented a document of the year 1978 to the Sub-Registrar, Portonovo, claiming that she was the owner of certain properties in Sirkali and Chidambaram taluks and in 1965, she had created a wakf dedicating all the properties for charitable purpose and in the year 1978, she executed the document in question pra viding for appointment of mutavalli to succeed her and the same was presented to the Sub-Registrar on 1st June, 1978. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar referred the document to the District Registrar, Chidambaram, who has been invested with the powers of the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that he had to take a decision as to whether the document is a settlement requiring stamp duty under Article 58 of the Act or otherwise. Since the document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Portonovo, a Public Officer, for registering the instrument, the Sub-Registrar has impounded the document under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Govindarajulu Vs. the Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ117
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. W.P. No. 545 of 1979 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed under Fundamental Rule 56(d) on 13th October, 1977. As the time of passing of the order, he was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Service.2. Petitioner entered service as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 1st September, 1948, and he attained the age of 50 years on 14th July, 1977. A charge memo, dated 25th February, 1976 was framed under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to which he submitted a memorial on 28th February, 1976 to the Inspector-General of Police stating that he would prefer proceedings being referred to Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal instead of being tried by departmental officers. On 27th May, 1976, he was informed that his request cannot be conceded, as none of the charges against him specifically involves corruption. Therefore the enquiry was directed to be held b...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kalyanam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ299Mad
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issued of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare, Madras in Ref. No. 77213/ESI/SC/2/77, dated 26th February, 1979, and to restrain the respondents from proceeding further against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the filling of this writ petition may be briefly set out as follows. In 1977 the petitioner was employed as a Superintendent of the Employees' State Insurance Hospital. Madras. On 11th December, 1977, a patient by name Vasudevan was found lying unconscious in the gardens of the E.S.I. Hospital at about 5 A.M. He was immediately taken to the Government General Hospital. On the way to the hospital the patient died. Thereafter the petitioner retired from service on 31st March, 1978. On 26th February, 1979, the charge memo which is impugned in this proceedings was served on the petitioner. The charge memo conta...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadeeswari Oil Trading Co. Vs. the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC125(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioners are assessees under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. In respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 action is being taken by the first respondent to recover the taxes. The first respondent admittedly filed an application before the Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, under section 24(2)(b) of the Act. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the said application C.T.M.P. No. 246 of 1977 was withdrawn on 1st March, 1978. But the fact remains that the first respondent has set in motion the process under section 24(2)(a) of the Act for recovery of the aforesaid taxes as if they were arrears of land revenue. The first respondent issued a distraint notice dated 31st January, 1979, under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (2 of 1864). The petitioners challenge this distraint notice in the present writ petition. 2. Mr. K. Venkatasubba Raju, the...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. P. Saraswathi Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad371
ORDER1. The only question that arises for consideration in these civil revision petitions is whether the claim for compensation Preferred by respondents 1 to 5 herein, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore, is entertainable, in view of the provisions of S. 53, Employees' State Insurance Act. Though at the time when the matter was with by the Tribunal, the matter not been examined by this court, dealt had now a Division Bench of this Court in Mangalam v. Express Newspapers Ltd., AAO No. 601 of 1978, judgment dated 2nd July 1981: (Reported in : AIR1982Mad223 ) has ruled that Section 53, Employees' State Insurance Act, would bar the maintainability of a claim for compensation under Section 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this decision, the order of the Tribunal taking a contrary view cannot be maintained, That order is set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed No order as to costs.2. Petitions allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Mallick, Proprietor, Truplex Dry Cleaners Vs. Jammal Mohammed b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ81
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 934 of 1978 on the, file of the Rent Controller for evicting the petitioner herein on the ground of sub-letting. On 5th August, 1978, the case was posted for final hearing and when it was called on that day, neither the tenant, nor her counsel was present and since there was no representation, an ex parte order of eviction was passed on 5th August, 1978. Subsequently, M.P. No. 2111 of 1978 was filed by the tenant for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction passed on 5th August, 1978. This petition was allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 100. The house rent control petition was restored to file and the same'was posted for final disposal in the special list on 13th September, 1979. On 13th September, 1979, the agent of the landlord was examined in chief as P.W. 1. At the request of the counsel for the tenant, the cross-examination of P.W. 1 was adjourned to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Masilamani Udayar Vs. Ramakrishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ209
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the judgment-debtor against the judgment in R.E.P. No. 106 of 1980 in O.S. No. 27 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai holding that the judgment-debtor is not a debtor as defined under Section 3(d) of Act XIII of 1980. The respondent herein obtained a decree against the revision petitioner for recovery of Rs. 8,425 in O.S. No. 27 of 1980 and filed R.E.P. No. 106 of 1980 for the realisation of the said amount by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor/revision petitioner filed a counter statement contending that he is a debtor as defined under Act XIII of 1980 and as such he is entitled to protection under the above-said Act. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor is not a debtor. as defined under the Act since during the relevant period the judgment-debtor had sold his landed properties for Rs. 17,750 a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nataraj Vs. Gangawar Mahajana Trust by Its President P. Kanniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ215
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. For a disposal of this revision, some background facts may be stated. Gangawar Mahajana Trust, which is a charitable trust, instituted a suit O.S. No. 76 of 1966 in the District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore against two persons, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the entry of the plaintiff trust or any of its members in the temple for holding their meetings, celebrating their festivals and the like. The suit was opposed by the defendants. Although the relief claimed was for a bare injunction, the learned District Munsif appears to have covered a wider field at the trial having regard to the details of the pleadings between the parties. One of the issues raised in the suit by the trial Court was:Whether the Gangawar Mahajana Trust is entitled to or has any interest in Mahali Amman temple or its premises?The learned District Munsif answered this issue in favour of the plaintiff and also granted a permanent injunction as prayed for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »