Chennai Court August 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.
N.S. Jayaraman Vs. C.A. Sunkuramiyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad77
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which arises out of R.C.O.P. No. 177 of 1980, Rent Controller's Court (District Munsif), Madurai Town filed by the first respondent herein under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XVIII of 1960) as amended by Act XXIII of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for fixation of the fair rent in respect of the building under the tenancy occupation of the petitioner and the second respondent. The building in question was initially let out to the father of the petitioner and the second respondent for the purpose of running a typewriting institute on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and after their father's death, they attorned the tenancy to the first respondent herein, who had, by then became the landlord of the building. Claiming that the building in the occupation of the petitioner and the second respondent would fall within Class I type having been built with cement mortar and bri...
Sargunam Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad301
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of declaration for invalidating R. 58 of O. 21 of the Civil P.C. on the ground that it is ultra vires the Constitution. A creditor of the petitioner's father had filed a suit and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree, -the creditor had attached a property over which the petitioner claimed title. The petitioner filed a claim petition to set aside the attachment. After enquiry, the second respondent, viz., the District Munsif, Periyakulam, Madurai Dist., dismissed the petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal, C.M.A. No. 6 of 1982, to the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam but that was also dismissed on 11- 11- 1983. The petitioner has filed a civil revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge to this court and the said revision petition is said to be pending admission. In the meanwhile the petitioner claims to have realised that O. 21, R. 58 of the Civil P.C. is ultra vires the Constitution and has therefore come fo...
A. Giridharilal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad234
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Government approved auctioneer for Madras City and Chingleput carrying on business for 12 years. In this proceeding, he challenges clause (5) in sub-rule (7) to rule 12 in the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers'Rules 1944, as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 1259 (Revenue) dated 29-5-1981 as unconstitutional.2. To regulate and control the business of pawn brokers in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, came to be promulgated. By virtue of the rule making power provided under S. 22 of the Act, Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules 1944, were made by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. According to rule 12, the auctioneer to whom the sale of a pledge by public auction is entrusted, shall be a person approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras, in the city of Madras and the Revenue Divisional Officer elsewhere. I had already pointed out that the petitioner is an approved auctioneer. The old clause (v) in sub-rule (7) of rule 12 runs as follow...
P. Rathinavelu Vs. G.M. Algarswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad181
ORDER1. The writ petition comes up for de novo consideration of its maintainability and the petitioner's claim for issue of a rule.2. Consequent on the passing of G. 0. Ms. No. 31, Public (Special-A) Department dated Jan. 11, 1984, by the Government of Tamil Nadu, a vigilant citizen, who is the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Forum of Public Affairs, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a Writ of quo warranto. The petition came up for orders on 16-2-1984 and notice was ordered to the respondents returnable by 27-6-1984, but subsequently, the forwarding of the notice was deferred pending further specific directions. There being no further directions. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has directed this petition to be posted for admission before the regular Court dealing with writ petitions. A. rule nisi not having been issued, the petition has to be treated as coming for admission afresh before me. On that basis, I heard the arguments of the...
A. Giridharilal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by the Commr. and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ333
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The petitioner is a Government approved auctioneer for Madras City and Chingleput carrying on business for 12 years. In this proceeding, he challenges Clause (5) in Sub-rule (7) to Rule 12 in the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers' Rules, 1944 as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 1259 (Revenue), dated 29-5-1981 as unconstitutional.2. To regulate and control the business of pawn brokers in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943 came to be promulgated. By virtue of the rule making power provided under Section 22 of the Act, Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944 were made by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. According to Rule 12, the auctioneer to whom the sale of a pledge by public auction is entrusted, shall be a person approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras, in the City of Madras and the Revenue Divisional Officer elsewhere. I had already pointed out that the petitioner is an approved auctioneer. The old Clause (v) in Sub-rule (7) to...
Patel Roadways Private Limited, Madras Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad119
ORDER1. The two writ petitions are identical in nature and have been filed by the same petitioner. They relate to the tenancy rights of the petitioner in a non-residential building which is owned in equal moieties by two minors who are arrayed as the second respondent respectively in each of the petitions. The petitioner has filed the petitions praying for the issue of a writ of declaration to nullify S. 10(3)(a)(iii) and S. 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended in 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they are unconstitutional.2. The circumstances under which the petitioner has come forward with these petitions are as under : The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its head office is in Bombay and it has 150 Branches spread over all the States of the Union of India. The Branch office in Madras is situated at Door No. 173, Broadway, Madrasl. The building is owned by two minor girls...
Patel Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ186
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The two writ petitions are identical in nature and have been filed by the same petitioner. They relate to the tenancy rights of the petitioner in a non-residential building which is owned in equal moieties by two minors who are arrayed as the second respondent respectively in each of the petitions. The petitioner has filed the petitions praying for the issue of a writ of declaration to nullify Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended in 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they are unconstitutional.2. The circumstances under which the petitioner has come forward with these petitions are as under: The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its head office is in Bombay and it has 150 Branches spread over all the States of the Union of India. The Branch office in Madras is situated at Door No. 173, Broadway, Madras-1. The building i...
Sethurama Udayar Vs. Chidambaram Municipality, Rep. by Its Executive A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ6
G. Maheswaran, J.1. The plaintiff, Chidambaram Municipality, claimed arrears of property tax from the defendant due for the period 1970-71 second half to 1975-76 second half, amounting to Rs. 179.90. The defence was that the claim for arrears of tax for more than 3 years from the date of plaint, is barred by limitation. The trial Court in a lacanic judgment, decreed the suit on the ground that the defendant has not shown as to how the claim for more than three years is barred by limitation. On appeal, the Appellate Judge relied on a decision in Shidrao Narayan Rao Gumaste Patil v. Municipality of Athani : AIR1943Bom21 and came to the conclusion that a claim to enforce payment of money, which is a charge on an immovable property, not only by an agreement between the parties, but also by operation of law, will be governed by Article 132 (corresponding to Article 62 of the New Act) of the Limitation Act and that therefore, the period of limitation for recovery of the amount is 12 years an...
Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Mad)306; 1985(5)ECC53; 1985(5)LC1637(Madras); 1984(18)ELT152(Mad); [1985]155ITR568(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in these three writ petitions is one and the same. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner manufactures cigarettes in its factory at Hosur, Dharmapuri District. The petitioner claims that it manufactures cigarettes for itself and for M/s. ITC Limited. Cigarettes are subject to levy of excise duty under Tariff item 4(II)(2) of the Central Excise Tariff under manufactured tobacco. There was a partial exemption notification No. 30/79 of Central Excise, dated March 1, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the exemption notification and the said notification, with its amendments by notifications Nos. 140/79 C.E. dated March 30, 1979 and 25/81 C.E. dated March 1, 1981, issued under sub-r. (1) of r. 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', reads as follows : 'Partial exemption to cigarettes. -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944, re...
Vittabai Ammal Vs. S. Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad173
1. The first defendant appeals.2. The facts of the case are summarily as follows: On 23rd August 1971, at about 9.15 a.m. one girl by name Mala, aged about 10 years, daughter of the plaintiffs herein, while standing near the shop of the second defendant to purchase cigarettes for her father, came into contact with the cross iron bar attached to the zinc sun shade in front of the said shop and received a heavy electric shock, as a result of which, she died on the way to the General Hospital. The first defendant is the owner of the premises including the three shops in front of the premises. The second defendant is a tenant under the first defendant of one of the shops and is doing business in betel nut, cigarettes etc. The plaintiffs instituted this suit against both the defendants for having them declared to be jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5000 for the damages caused to them on account of the death of their child. Both the, defendants contended that the death wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »