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.
Mariammal Vs. Govindammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ397
Swamikkannu, J.1. The second plaintiff Mariamma, in O.S. No. 108 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by one Nagammal for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/6 share in all the suit properties which 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 legal repres...
P.K. Ramasamy Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies, North Arcot Regi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad171; (1985)1MLJ145
1.The petitioner challenges a show-cause notice issued under S. 72(l)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 53 of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Act. As on date, admittedly no final order of supersession has been passed. Only a show-cause notice has been issued. Mr. G. Devadoss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, admits that the petitioner has submitted his explanation in answer to the above show-cause notice. Learned counsel would state that even before the issuance of the show-cause notice, there ought to be a consultation with the Financing Bank as per S. 72(6) of the Act, and in support of this proposition, he relies on a pronouncement of a Bench of the High Court of Orissa in Saraf Chandra v. State : AIR1979Ori143 , where provisions similar to S. 72(6) of the Act were considered. It is true that the said pronouncement supports the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, so far as this Court is concerned,...
Presentation Convent by Its Mother Superior Vs. Corporation of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ162
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question which arises in these civil revision petitions is whether the Small Causes Court, Madras, can in an appeal against the decision of the taxation Appeals Committee, condone the delay in issuing a notice of intention to appeal which is required to be issued to the Commissioner within ten days from the date on which such decision was communicated by registered post under Rule 15(a)(i) of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. The petitioner is a Convent whose property was assessed to municipal tax. The Convent filed the appeals against the order of assessment to the Taxation Appeals Committee under Rule 4 of the Rules. The Taxation Appeals Committee decided the appeal by an order which was received by the Convent on 21.10.1982, It is stated in the affidavits far condonation of delay filed before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, that the Mother Superior had to leave M...
A. Muthalif Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, Devakottai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad87
1. This writ appeal is against the order of a single Judge, In W. P. 3754 of 1978 dated 31-3-1981.2. The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed before this Court are as follows: The writ petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.65 acres of land bearing S.No. 339/1 in Tirupathur Town, Ramanathapuram district. The said land was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette for acquisition for the provision of house sites to Harijans of 11th Ward of Tirupathur Town under S. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the enquiry under S. 5A, the petitioner objected to the acquisition of the land on the ground that the State Bank of India, Tirupathur, Branch and himself had entered into a contract as early as in September 1976 and that consequently the Bank advanced Rs.90000 to the petitioner for the construction of the building as per the plan furnished by the Bank. The Land Acquisition Officer inspected the land proposed to be acquired an...
V.K. Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad116
ORDER1. A peep into a statute, a look at the Constitution and off to Court may appear to be a good enough formula for the petitioner to file a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but not to the Court, because it will not issue rule nisi on the basis of scanty material.2. After the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been on the statute book for nearly a quarter century, the petitioner herein, who is facing an action for eviction filed by the owner of a building for non-ssspayment of rent, claims to have discovered a constitutional flaw in S. 2(3) of the Act and a statutory contravention in S. 18(l) of the Act. As stated earlier, the owner of a building in the occupation of the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. 3069 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner's defence would appear to be that he has ...
N.C. Sivagaminathan and ors. Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ271
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. For allotment of houses built by the first respondent in the writ petition, a quota system was formulated in G.O. Ms. No. 631, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29-7-1981 subject to subsequent changes as per A.R. No. 202 dated 20-8-1981, and it is as follows:(i) for S.C. and S.T. ... 20%(ii) Employees for State Government and their undertakings ... 15%(iii) Employees of Central Government and their undertakings ... 5%(iv) General Public ... 60%The writ petitioners who are State Government employees would contend that after allotment of 15% of the houses for employees of the State Government, the unsuccessful applicant must also be allowed to share the draw in the 60% quota reserved for the general public. Such a contention cannot be accepted. If there is no reservation quota under various categories, then every one can take his chance. But when there is a reservation quota, the employees of the State Government cannot contend that they are entitled...
Mrs. M.M. Roy Vs. N.V.P. Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ303
David Annoussamy, J.1. The plaintiff appeals. The suit out of which this appeal arises was laid with the following averments. The defendant is a building contractor known to the plaintiff who appears to be a widow. The plaintiff was making efforts to have her son admitted in the Madras Medical College. The defendant, came forward to help her in having her son admitted in the medical college, if the plaintiff would lend him some money. Accordingly, the plaintiff Parted with Rs.'l5,000 in all. The seat in the medical college was not secured. The defendant executed an agreement undertaking to pay the money. Since he failed to act as per that agreement, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the refund of the money.2. The defendant denied totally all the facts, specifically the receipt of money from the plaintiff. He denied also that he had at any time promised to secure a seat for her son in the medical college. He denied also having executed an agreement as alleged in the plaint. He, howe...
V.K. Joseph Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secy. to the Govt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ494
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. A peep into a statute, a look at the Constitution and off to Court may appear to be a good enough formula for the petitioner to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but not to the Court, because it will not issue rule nisi on the basis of scanty material.2. After the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been on the statute book for nearly a quarter century, the petitioner herein, who is facing an action for eviction filed by the owner of a building for non-payment of rent, claims to have discovered a constitutional flaw in Section 2(3) of the Act and a statutory contravention in Section 18(1) of the Act. As stated earlier, the owner of a building in the occupation of the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. 3069 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Cases, Madras) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner's defence would ...
A. Muthalif Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ237
1. This writ appeal is against the order of a single Judge, in W.P. No. 3754 of 1978 dated 31.3.1981.2. The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed before this Court are as follows:The Writ Petitioner is the owner of an extent of O.65 acre of land bearing Survey No. 339/1 in Tirupathur Town, Ramanathapuram District. The said land was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette for acquisition for - the provision of house sites to Harijans of 11th ward of Tirupathur Town under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the enquiry under Section 5-A, the petitioner objected to the acquisition of the said land on the ground that the State Bank of India, Tiruppatur Branch and himself had entered into a contract as early as in September, 1976 and that consequently the Bank advanced Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner for the construction of the building as per the plan furnished by the Bank. The Land Acquisition Officer inspected the lan...
Palanivelayutham and ors. Vs. Ramassamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ298
Mohan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants in this appeal. The same arises out of the judgment and preliminary decree for partition rendered in O.S.No. 341 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-court, Madurai.2. The facts are as under: During the minority of the plaintiffs, the suit was filed by P.W.1 for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' l/6th share in the suit properties. The suit filed was approved by the plaintiffs on their attaining majority. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs and the seventh defendant are the sons of Sivasankara through his second wife while defendants 1,5 and 6 are the sons through his first wife. The eighth defendant is the second wife or Sivasankaran. Sivasankaran died on 27th January, 1956. The suit properties are ancestral properties of the said Sivasankaran who inherited the same. The suit properties remained as joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1,5 and 6 who continued as members of the joint family and as undiv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »