Chennai Court July 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.
Onward Trading Company Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC56
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner relates to the curtailment of the tenure of licences issued to him under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. We are concerned with four licences. The first licence was dated 8th September, 1977 and the period of the licence was 24 months and it would lapse by or on 8th September, 1979. The date of the second licence was 6th January, 1978 and the duration of the licence was 24 months and it would lapse by or on 6th January, 1980. The (third) licence was for 24 months and it would lapse by or on 20th February, 1980. These three licences were issued taking note of the import policy declared for the year 1977-1978. The fourth licence was dated 29th April, 1978 and the validity period was only up to 31st March, 1979. This fourth licence was issued pursuant to the Import Policy for the year 1978-1979. In the Import Policy for the year 1978-1979, paragraph 202 declared that even the licences issued for the licensing period Ap...
K.V. Mohanasundaram Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ373
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition C.R.P. No. 1888 of 1982 arises out of I.A. No. 176 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem. C.M.A. No. 256 of 1982 arises out of I.A. No. 177 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem. In a common judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem dismissed both the interlocutary applications. Hence, the claim petitioner by name K.V. Mohana Sundaram has preferred the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal as stated above, and he will be hereinafter referred to as Mohana Sundaram. The short facts of these cases are that the Civil Supplies Corporation filed the suit O.S. No. 46 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Salem against the second respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 5,82,138.35 in respect of the supply of paddy given for hulling. The suit was filed on 5-2-1982. In that suit I.A. No. 149 of 1982 was filed on the very same date for attachment of four...
N. Pararneswara Kurup (Died) and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad126
1. These second appeals arise out of a common judgment pronounced in A.S. 96 of 1978, 117 of 1978 and 133 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, which in turn were filed against the judgments in O.S. Nos. 219 of 1977, 9 of 1977 and 481 of 1977 respectively on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. O.S. 9 of 1977 was filed by one Parameswara Kurup for a declaration that the Thiruvattar High School at Thiruvattar, Kalkulam taluk, now in Kanniyakumari district under the management of the plaintiff is a linguistic minority educational institution coming under the, purview of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974. O.S. 219 of 1977 was filed by one Sankaran Pillai for a declaration that the Sree Krishnavilasom Middle School, Muttakadu under the management of the plaintiff is a minority school coming ...
indrani Ammal and ors. Vs. K.P. Unnikrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ310
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Certain facts are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question raised in this writ petition. The first respondent on the basis that he is the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act filed H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978 for eviction of the petitioners under the Rent Control Act. One of the grounds urged for eviction was wilful default in the payment of rents. The first respondent took out M.P. No. l806 of 1978 under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act to stop further proceedings in H.R.C., if the petitioners herein, the respondents in H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978, did not deposit the arrears of rent. The Controller under the Rent Control Act directed the deposit within a stipulated time. Obviously, the arrears of rent were not deposited and M.P. No. 1806 of 1978 was allowed and consequently an order of eviction was passed in H.R.C. N...
Padmanabha Mudaliar Vs. E.B. Purushothaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ480
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The respondent in E.P. No. 251 of 1982 is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein filed the execution petition for delivery of possession after removing the superstructure standing on the vacant land comprised in R.S. No. 353/29 and 353/53 measuring about 2,767 sq. ft. It is the case of the respondent herein that he filed Ejectment Suit No. 206 of 1966 against one P.S.M. Shanmugam and at that time, the said Shanmugham had constructed a superstructure at No. 43-C, Perambur High Road, Madras, which is now known as 43-B/l and now numbered as 60, Perambur High Road. In that ejectment suit, the said Shanmugham filed an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act in M.P. No. 2979 of 1966 for purchasing the land on which the superstructure has been put up. The trial Court held Shanmugham is entitled to protection under the City Tenants' Protection Act and has also directed the respondent therein to deposit a sum of Rs. 50/- towards the Co...
S. Srinivasan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by Commr. and Secy. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ484
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ petition has got to be allowed on a very convincing point and definitely an unimpeachable point on the facts of the case, read along with the Rules relied on by the petitioner. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was functioning as Selection Grade Block Development Officer. Subsequently, he was visited with four charges, the details of which we are not concerned in the present writ petition and the charges related to the period when the petitioner functioned as the Selection Grade Block Development Officer. The enquiry was processed through the Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. There is no dispute before me that the petitioner was a gazetted officer at the relevant point of time. The initial order of punishment of withholding of increments was passed by the second respondent. It is true that as against the initial order of punishment of with...
Vinay Cotton Waste Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC391(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax revision case filed by the assessee the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that a turnover of Rs. 3,11,400 represents inter-State sales effected by the assessee during the assessment year 1979-80 is challenged. The assessee's contention before the Tribunal was that the said turnover represents the assessee's local sales made to the Imperial Textile Waste Company, Madras, that those sales being second sales are not liable to be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and that the transaction cannot be treated as inter-State sales as has been done by the authorities below. The Tribunal, after referring to the terms of the contract entered into between the assessee and the Imperial Textile Waste Company, Madras, has taken the view that since the said contract contemplates movement of the goods outside the State, the sales by the assessee to the Imperial Textile Waste Company, Madras, should be taken to be inter-State sales. The said ...
A.K. Thangadurai and ors. Vs. District Forest Officer, Madurai and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad104
1. In these three categories of writ petitions, one batch of petitioners have questioned the validity of certain orders passed by the respondents refusing to renew the forest leases earlier granted in their favour in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.84 Forests and Fisheries Department D/-9-2-1979 under which the government has directed that no cardamom lease should be renewed hereafter on the expiry of the period of the existing leases in view of the general policy-decision of the Government and G.O.Ms. No. 1220 Forest and Fisheries D/- 7-11-1979 in which the Government had decided to grant forest leases of two hectares or less for cardamom cultivation only to small farmers or landless persons or Tribals depending for their living on cardamom cultivation alone. This batch of writ petitions consists of the following cases :W.Ps. Nos. 1945, 2069, 4790, 5088 and 6147 of 1979, 564. 897 to 903, 1292, 1304, 1542 to 1545, 1570, 1604, 1711 to 1713, 1740, 1746, 4814, 5927, 6002, 6181, 6584, 6655, 6680,...
T.K. Doraiswamy Vs. Premchand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ345
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner herein has come forward with this civil revision petition against the dismissal of C.M.A.No. 115 of 1977 holding that the petitioner herein cannot maintain the appeal in view of the amended provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976), Clause 97 (2) (a) reads as follows:The amendment made to Clause (2) of the Principal Act by Section 3 of this Act shall not affect any appeal against the determination of any such question as is referred to in Section 47 and every such appeal shall be dealt with as if the said Section 3 had not come into force.2. The definition Section of the Code of Civil Procedure which is Section 2, as far as decree is concerned subsequent to the amendment, does not take in an order under Section 47 as corning under the definition of a 'decree'. If that be so, the order passed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable and only a...
Mariammal Vs. Govindammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad5
Swamikkannu, J.1. The second plaintiff Mariammal in O. S. No. 108 of 1974. on the file of the Subordinate Judge. 26 Mayuram, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by one Nagammal for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/6th share in all the suit properties which 26 included both immovables and movables. Her daughter. Mariammal, was the third defendant. She is her only heir. Pending suit Nagammal died and therefore. the third defendant transposed herself as the second plaintiff as per order of the trial Court and has claimed half share in all the suit properties and 'for partition of the same.2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is as follows: - One Chinnathambia Pillai had three wives. of whom first wife had predeceased him and the original plaintiff Nagammal and the first defendant Govindammal are respectively his second and third wives. Kanagambujam, the second defendant. is the daughter of the first defendant. She died pending the suit and her ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »