Chennai Court December 1981 Judgments
Punithammal and ors. Vs. Krishna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ365
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The petitioner's father filed an application under the Ta mil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, for the eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. Pending that, he died and thereafter a few of the legal representatives, leaving behind one of the daughters of the deceased, continued the application which resulted in an order of eviction. That was successfully contested before the appellate authority. Hence, against this appellate order setting aside the order of eviction, the present revision has been preferred.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in so far as the estate of the deceased has been fully represented by the majority of the legal re. presentives, the application must be held to be maintainable. This is opposed relying on two of the rulings reported in Doya Ram v. Shyam Sundari : [1965]1SCR231 and Dalai Mallike v. Krushna Chandra : AIR1967SC49 , stating that it is not permissible in ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Basheer Ahmad and ors. Vs. R. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ307
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Both of these revision petitions can be dealt with under a common order. The parties will be referred to by their names to avoid any confusion.2. Applications were invited for the grant of a stage carriage permit ion the route from Erode to Appakudal Sakthi Nagar (Sugar Factory) which is of a distance of 22 miles and 4 furlongs. This has to be classified as short route for which the new entrants will be given preference. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore by his proceedings, dated 27th April, 1971 preferred Taxi Drivers Bus Service, because of their co-operative nature of enterprise. Aggrieved against this order, R. Govindarajulu and Mahalakshmi Transports, the respondent in both these revisions and the revision-petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3098 of 1978, respectively, preferred appeals. They came to be numbered as Appeal Nos. 601 and 635 of 1971. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration ultimately concluded that it was the respondent, who was best suited for...
Tag this Judgment!Wheels India Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC245(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. In W.P. No. 2830 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 21st March, 1980, for the assessment year 1978-79 of the second respondent passed against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 3153 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reassessment order dated 3rd May, 1980, for the assessment year 1974-75 of the second respondent against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 3154 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the reassessment order dated 3rd May, 1980, for the assessment year 1975-76 of the second respondent against the petitioner. The second respondent has passed the impugned order assessing wheels and top rollers manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, as tractor parts taxable under entry 55 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the Act)....
Tag this Judgment!G. Alagiri Vs. Collector of Thanjavur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad134
1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act 9 of 1955, hereinafter referred to assess the Act and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The petitioner was running a touring cinema in S. F. No. 286/2 of Vadaseri village, Orathanad taluk, Thanjavur District. The touring cinema was run up to 12-4-1979. Even on 23-3-1979, the fourth respondent applied to the first respondent for the grant of a `No objection' certificate to locate a touring cinema in S. F. No. 297 of the same village. There is no dispute that if the running of the touring cinema of the petitioner as well as the touring cinema of the fourth respondent are to be permitted, they will be within the prohibited distance. Prior to Sept. 1979, sub-rule (2) of R. 109 of the Rules stipulated that after the period of three years exhibition as contemplated in sub-rule (1), there shall be a minimum interval of three months before a `No objection' certificate is grant...
Tag this Judgment!Karayandi Kousalya Vs. Kunhayi Sahia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ273
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in M.R.P. No. 23 of 1979, dated 27th March, 1980, dismissing the revision petition that was filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 by the tenant, Karayandi Kousalya. The said petition under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 by the tenant was to set aside the order, dated 30th June, 1979, passed by the appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 69 of 1977 and also the order of the Rent Controller, Mahe, dated 23rd November, 1977, passed in H.R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1977.2. The petition for eviction was filed before, the learned District Munsif and Rent Controller, Mahe as R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1977 by the landlady under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for eviction of the tenant Karayandi Kousalya on the ground of bona fide requirement ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›