Chennai Court October 1984 Judgments
Syed Mohideen Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad188; (1985)IILLJ348Mad
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The question which arises for decision before this Full Bench is whether Government Ordcr No. 783 issued by the Rural, Development Department on 30th April, 1981, giving eflect to the guidelines with regard to the deterinination of senioriq of persons who wcre appointed in the Panchayat Dcvelopment, Units in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service is constitutionally valid. Since the impugned. Government Order was issued by the Government admittedly with a View to give effect to the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 40.1. 402 and 403 of 1975 decided on 12-12-1977, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of writ Appeals Nos. 394 to 396 of 1979, filed by the State Government, District Collector of Salem, arid the Director of Rural Development, Madras and since the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in W.A. No. 462 of 1984, which was taken up along with the writ petitions which raise the same point, c...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.B. Shannnkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1984
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas909(Mad)
V. Ramaswamy J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against a common order in O.P.Nos. 122 and 123 of the 1982 on file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Madras. Due to a collision between a scooter TMP 2939 and a taxi MSV 5202, the driver of the scooter and the pillion rider, a minor son of the scooter driver, were injured. Two claim petitions were filed, one by the scooter driver and the other on behalf of the pillion rider, the minor son of the scooter driver. The scooter driver claimed Rs. 25,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, while on behalf of the pillion rider, a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,000 for the injuries sustained by the minor was filed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi and that the claimants are entitled to compensation. However, the Tribunal held that the scooter driver was entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,630 and the pill...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar, Annamalai University, Chidambaram Vs. C.R. Lakshmikanthan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad174
Shanmukham, J.1. A sole and a common question that arose, for determination in W. P. 10305, 10847, 10889 and 10916 of 1981 is whether the Syndicate of the Annamalai University has got the power to pass a resolution shedding the under-graduate courses from the curriculum of the University. The above proceedings were brought by a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council and a social worker, a parent, a Reader in English and member of the Syndicate Annamalai University, and a lecturer in Annamalai University respectively challenging the jurisdiction of the Syndicate of the Annamalai University to pass resolution No. I dated 5-91981 closing the under-graduate course from the curriculum of the University from October 198 1. The common respondent is the Registrar of the University as representing the Syndicate, while in the last two petitions, the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Education Department was impleaded as respondent 2. Mr. Justice Padmanablian upheld t...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. C.B. Shankar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1984
Reported in: II(1985)ACC352; (1985)2MLJ410
Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against a common order in O.P.Nos. 122 and 123 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Madras. Due to a collision between a scooter TMP 2939 and a taxi MSV 5202, the driver of the scooter and the pillion rider, a minor son of the scooter driver, were injured. Two claim petitions were filed, one by the scooter driver and the other on behalf of the pillion rider, the minor son of the scooter driver. The scooter driver claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, while on behalf of the pillion rider, a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the injuries sustained by the minor was filed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi and that the claimants are entitled to the compensation. However, the Tribunal held that the scooter driver was entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,630/- and ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Engineering Vs. Neyvelilignite Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas168(Mad)
Shanmukham, J.1. In these appeals, three common question arise for consideration. They are : (1``) Whether the three bank guarantees executed by the second respondent-bank in favour of the first respondent are independent contracts divorced from the contracts entered into between the appellant and the first respondent titled contract No. II (2) Whether they are conditional or unconditional contracts and (3) Whether the first respondent's demand on the second respondent- bank when the former sought to enforce the bank guarantees is in conformity with the terms contained in these guarantees 2. The appeals are directed against the common order of Maheswaran J. made in Applications Nos. 188 to 190 and 402 to 404 of 1983 dated April 30, 1983. In all these applications, the appellant was the applicant while is against Application No. 403 of 1983 ; OSA No. 86 of 1983 is against Application No. 188 of 1983 ; OSA No. 87 of 1983 is against Application No. 189 of 1983 and OSA No. 88 of 1983 is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Needle Industries Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ405Mad
ORDERShanmukam, J.1. In W.P. No. 3618 of 1978, two questions fell for determination and they are : (i) Whether a demand should be made either directly by the workman or on his behalf on the management to raise an industrial dispute and (ii) whether a demand made by the workman on the management through the conciliation Officer is enough to raise an industrial dispute. Mr. Justice Nainar Sundaram answered both questions in favour of the workman and in the affirmative. Hence, this appeal by the management. It may be stated that the workman brought the writ proceeding and in that proceeding, the management was the 1st respondent while the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, was the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent notwithstanding an industrial dispute having been referred to him by the Government because in the conciliation proceeding, no settlement was arrived at, held that at no stage prior to the present reference, has any demand been made on the management for the w...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Engineering Vs. Neyyeh Ligonite Corporation Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad213; (1985)1MLJ426
Shanmukham, J.1. In these appeals, three common questions arise for consideration. They are; (i) Whether the three bank guarantees executed by the 2nd respondent bank in favour of the Ist respondent are independent contracts divorced from the contracts entered into between the appellant and the Ist respondent titled contract No. 11 (ii) whether they are conditional or unconditional contracts and (iii) whether the Ist respondent's demand on the 2nd respondent bank when the former sought to enforce the bank guarantees is in conformity with the terms contained in these guarantees,2. The appeals are directed against the common order of Maheswaran, J. made in applications 188 to 190 and 402 to 404 of 1983 dated 30-4-1983. In all these applications, the appellant was the applicant while respondents 1 and 2 are the respondents therein. O.S.A. No. 85 of 1983 is against application No. 403 of 1983; 0. S. A. 86 of 1983 is against application No. 188 of 1983; O.S.A. 87 of 1983 is against applicat...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramania Gothavari and anr. Vs. K.S.G. Sivajothiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ321
G. Ramanujam, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the judgment of Mohan, J. in C.M.A. No. 168 of 1983 has been questioned. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Judge has not discussed in detail the points arising in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the contentions put forward by the Counsel on either side. No doubt, the judgment is a brief one and it does not set out in detail the controversy between the parties and the points urged on both sides. However, on the ground that the judgment is a brief one it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that the ultimate judgment of the learned single Judge is incorrect.2. A suit was filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein against the father (sixth respondent herein) of the appellants on the basis that the sixth respondent as an agent was accountable to respondents 1 to 5. The said suit was decreed on 24th December, 1974 and there was an appeal to this Court in A.S. No. 285 of 1975. This Court by judgment dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Musiri Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Ranganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ128Mad; (1985)1MLJ67
1. The third defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the first respondent for declaring that the order of the third defendant, dated 10th November, 1979 and the order of the second defendant, dated 29th March, 1980 and also the order of the third defendant, dated 6th May, 1980 are ab initio void, illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said orders. 2. The plaintiff-first respondent was the Secretary of the third defendant-Co-operative Land Development Bank at Musiri, Disciplinary action was taken against the plaintiff and charges were framed against him for certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the plaintiff. The third defendant appointed an Enquiry Officer and on basis of the report dismissed the plaintiff on 10th November, 1979. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the second defendant, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Musiri...
Tag this Judgment!W.P.A. Soundarapandian High School, Madras Vs. the Joint Director of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad37
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant filed on an earlier occasion W. P. 2539 of 1980 questioning the validity of the very order in D. Dis. No. 91430/67/79 dt. 21-4-1980 of the Joint Director of School Education, which is now impugned in this writ petition. That order is an appealable order and an appeal lies to the Tribunal constituted under Private College Regulations Act. Realising that he has to exhaust that remedy, the learned counsel who appeared in the said writ petition wanted permission to pursue that alternative remedy and wanted to withdraw the writ petition. Such permission was given after recording the statement that an appeal against that order could be pursued. But, however the appellant did not file the appeal and after some time filed W. P. 3908 of 1980 praying for the same relief as in the earlier writ petition. This was on the ground that under S. 44 of the Act, which enabled the appellant to file an appeal, certain conditions precedent relating to deposit will have to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »