Chennai Court November 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Durai Pandi Vs. Lakshmanan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad376; (1985)1MLJ306
ORDER1. In these two revisions, the plaintiff in O.S.264 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif of Devakottai, is the petitioner. Admittedly, at the time of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff was a minor and he was represented by his father and next friend, one Sowmiya Moorthy, who was again represented by his power of attorney. The respondents in these two revisions are the defendants in the suit. There is no necessity to go into the details of the suit for the purpose of disposing of these revisions. Suffice it to state that the suit was dismissed for default on 14-2-1976. The plaintiff took out an application for restoration, I.A. 115 of 1978, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. That application was dismissed on 7-10-1980. As against the order of dismissal, an appeal was preferred on 10-2-1981, which got numbered as C.M.A. 10 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. Admittedly, anterior to the fil...
K.S. Kasimaris Ceremique Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad311
Ramanujam, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the decision of Mohan, J. in W. P. 765 of 1982, dismissing the same. The third respondent herein filed O. P. 114 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Chingleput, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,56,223.02 being the amount due in respect of two mortgage loans taken by the appellant. The said original petition has been filed under S. 31, State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 which is intended to facilitate the speedy recovery of the outstanding loans to all the financial institutions such as respondent 3. The appellant has filed its counter statement in the said original petition. One of the contentions urged by the appellant before the said District Court was that the original petition was not maintainable and that court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. The appellant also moved the District Court by filing an application under S. It 3, read with O. 46 R. 1, Civil P. C. to refer the question of constitutio...
Sudalaimadam and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1310
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Crl. P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 16 of 1984, on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No. II, Tenkasi. The accused are the petitioners.2. On a complaint given by one V. V. Sundararajan, Special Deputy Tahsildar 'S' Bend Check Post, Puliyari, the respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Puliyari, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for an offence under Section 353, I.P.C. The allegation is that on 30-11-1983 at about 3 p.m. the said V. V. Sundararajan was on duty at the check post. The accused appeared there and abused all the members of the staff with vulgar words and prevented the check post staff from joining their legitimate duty. After the examination of P. W.1, the learned Public Prosecutor, filed a memo to the effect that no offence under Section 353, I.P.C. was made out, as the accused had not used any criminal force or assaulted any person and praying for the alteration of the c...
S. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. Chairman, Departmental Promotion Committ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ241
1. These appeals are directed against the common Judgment of Padmanabhan, J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 541, 10551 of 1981 and 6457 of 1982 dismissing the writ petitions with certain observations.2. The appellants joined the Defence Production Department as Viewers Grade C. Subsequently they were promoted as Viewers Grade B which was later re-designated as Examiners Grade II. In the Category of Examiners, there were three grades, namely, (i) Examiners Grade II; (ii) Examiners Grade I and (iii) Selection Grade Examiners. The promotional post for all the three categories of Examiners is the post of Supervisor Technical Grade III. The selection for the said post is strictly by seniority among those who had passed a trade test in terms of S.R.O. No. 109 of 1964 which has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said S.R.O. No. 109 of 1964, as amended from time to time, prescribes the method of filling up the vacancies in the post of Supervisor Technical Grade III (herein...
T. Srinivasan and anr. Vs. V. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad269
1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff, in main, has laid the suit for recovery of the price of the land and other incidental charges, resiling from the sale in his favour, on the ground of defect in title. Pending the suit, he sought for an attachment before judgment of five items of immovable properties. The defendants contested that application and in spite of such contest, the court below deemed it fit to order attachment before judgment of item 1 of the immovable properties. This appeal is directed against the order of the court below.2. Mr. R. Gandhi learned counsel for the defendants, would submit that apart from bare allegations that the first defendant is bent upon secreting his assets to defeat and delay the suit and that the plaintiff came to know about the manoeuvres on the part of the first defendant through one Jagannathan, Mundy, Karur, no attempt was made to substant...
P. Vembadimuthu Vs. Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ499
ORDERM.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Ref. No. 88521/S.C./4/83, dated 16.8.1983 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages etc., on the following grounds:2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Store Keeper on 9.12.1966 at a Government Primary Health Centre in Coimbatore District. He was transferred later to Vadakkankulam in Tirunveiveli District and thereafter to Thenthiruperai and other places. While he was serving at, Valathi, the second respondent, namely, the District Family Welfare Maternity and Child Health Officer, Cuddalore, issued a suspension order alleging that there were grave charges against the petitioner, and an enquiry into the said charges was in contemplation. On 27.8.1979, the second respondent issued a charge-memo to the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›