Chennai Court June 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.
R. Chandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC317
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. One R. Sivanandam, brother of the petitioner, was detained under Section 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to for the brevity sake as COFEPOSA), by an order dated 30th September, 1983. On 14th February, 1983, the officers of the Central Excise, Preventive, Madras, seized one lorry with 20 bundles of Indian beedi leaves and four catamarans with three bundles each of the beedi leaves attempted to be smuggled out to Sri Lanka and a standard van with 23 bundles of foreign nylon zip fasteners and polyester suitings smuggled into India at Perianeelankarai Kuppam shores. The value of the goods seized is stated to be Rs. 5,54,400. During the course of investigation, one T. Aran, who had number of alias, was examined as also a number of other persons. This Arun originally gave a statement in which he traced his connivance in the illegal smuggling of contraband articles inside a...
S.K. Panchaksharam Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. T.V. Kanniah Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad156
Mohan, J. 1. The plaintiff having lost in his suit O. S. No. 55 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupattur, North Arcot has come up by way of this appeal. The suit was for specific performance of the agreement dt. 26-2-1974, Ex. At between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The suit properties consisted of several parcels of land. Item No. 1, 1 acre 11 cents, item No. 2, 1 acre 95 cents, item No. 3, 6 cents, item No. 4, 61 cents and item No. 5, 58 cents. The consideration for sale was fixed at Rs. 42500 of which Rs. 2500 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. Four months time was stipulated. It is common case that the fourth defendant was a tenant under the first defendant, the owner of the property, regarding item No. 1. The plaintiff claims in his plaint that he was the tenant of items Nos. 2 to 5. It may be stated even at t is stage that we are not called upon to decide the character of his possession in the suit for specific performance. It is also necessary to sta...
Usuvathun Hasana Muslim Sangam Vs. Board of Revenue (Se), Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad368
Ramanujam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. passed in Writ Petition No. 395 of 1975, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. 2. The circumstances under which the appellant came to this Court with the above writ petition may briefly be stated. Usuvathum Hasana Muslim Sangam at Keelakarai, which has been in the management of the Pudu Pallivasal and its properties, moved the Settlement Officer, Madurai for the issue of a patta in respect of G.R.S. No, 304/5 (61 cents), G.R.S. No. 324/1856 (26 cents) and G.R.S. No. 324/2012 (9 cents) on the ground that the said land has been used for the purposes of the Pallivasal. The matter was remitted by the Settlement Officer to the Assistant Settlement Officer for enquiry and the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dt. 27-8-1968 held that the said three items of land been in enjoyment of the Pallivasal and the Sangam has become the owner of these properties by virtue of its control and management ov...
Seetha Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1115
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, Duraiswamy Mudaliar, praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.2. By an order dt. 7-12-1983 the husband of the petitioner one Duraisamy Mudaliar was directed to be detained and kept in custody at the Central Prison by the District Magistrate, Chingalpattu in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (for short the Act) on the ground that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner .prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was charged for an offence under Section 4(l)(a) of the Tamil Nadu 1 Prohibition Act in Crime No. 1894 of 1982 on the ground that he was found to be in possession on 13-10-1982 of chloral hydrate and has been selling the same to to...
Gopalakrishnan Vs. M.A.V. Veerappa Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad274
1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 579 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Pudukottai is the appellant. The first respondent, who died pending disposal of the second appeal, was the plaintiff. The suit filed by him was for partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of his one half share in the suit property with mesne profits.2. The brief facts relating to the suit areas follows: Originally the suit property belonged to one Krishnaswami Chettiar and others Subsequently, one S. K. Ramaswami Chettiar, son of Krishnaswami Chettiar, and his agnate Nagarathnam Animal, became the owners of the suit properties, the former having two-third share and the latter one-third share. In I.P. 6 of 1956, Sub-Court, Pudukottai, the said Ramaswami Chettiar was adjudged as an insolvent by an order dt. 12-9-1956 and all the properties including the mortgaged property vested with the Official Receiver. Tiruchirapalli. In the course of the administration of the estate of Rama...
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC542
ORDER1. The defendant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by its Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, Mettur Dam, in O.S.No.148 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur, is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the show cause notice issued by the appellant on 17.10.1980 was null and void and for an injunction on restraining him from giving effect to the same and for costs on the following averments:The respondent was a Junior Assistant in the Revenue Unit, Attur, and she was working in the same capacity in the Velapady Revenue Unit. The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Attur, asked the respondent to explain certain lapses by memo dated 12.2.1976. She offered her explanation on 23.2.1976. Though as per the standing orders of ClericalWorks, the Divisional Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Attur, was not competent to ask the respondent to offer explanation and he could not i...
Tirumathi Manoranjitham Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ474
Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The appellant filed W.P. No. 997 of 1972 for the purpose of calling for the records comprised in the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 584, Revenue, dated 25-2-1972, on the file of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Madras - 9, by the issue of a Writ of Certiorari and for quashing the order of the second respondent, dated 25-2-1972.2. By the impugned order dated 25-2-1972, the lands in S. No. 130/1 measuring 4.72 acres, in S. No. 129/2 measuring 1.08 acres and in S. No. 78/lB measuring 48 cents, in all measuring 6.28 acres were declared as surplus under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961). According to the appellant herein, these lands declared as surplus and other lands, in all measuring 21.58 acres were settled on her by her husband Arunachalam Pillai on 20-10-1959 by a valid settlement deed. The commencement of the Act in question is dated 6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›