Chennai Court September 1984 Judgments
Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras Vs. R. Narayanaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas787(Mad)
Kader, J.1. This is a petition to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.R.C. No. 84 of 1981, confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C.C. No. 858 of 1980, discharging the respondents accused Nos. 7 to 11. The complainant is the petitioner before this court. 2. The petitioner herein, who is the Assistant Registrar of Companies of Tamil Nadu, Madras, has filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C.C. No. 858 of 1980, against the Southern Textiles Ltd. and its thirteen directors under s, 58A(3)(c) of the Companies Act of 1956. The gist of the offence is that the first accused-company had accepted deposits in excess of the limits prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and the rules framed thereunder and have failed to repay the excess on or before April 1, 1975, as required by s. 58A(3)(c) of the Companies Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found that there was no sufficient ground to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani and ors. Vs. H.N. Thirumalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad283; (1985)1MLJ142
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Mohan J. in CMP 17787 of 1983 in AAO 869 of 1983, refusing to grant injunction as prayed for by the appellants therein. The said C. M. A. arose out of an order dated 30-11-1983 passed by the trial court in I. A. 239 of 1983 in O. S. 65 of 1983, on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of the suit O. S. 65 of 1983 for partition. In the said C. M. A. 869 of 1983, the plaintiffs in O. S. 65 of 1983 questioned the order of the trial Court refusing to grant injunction, restraining the defendants therein from putting up constructions in the suit property bearing survey No. 263 and measuring 5.38 acres. According to the plaintiffs, the sixth defendant in the suit who is the respondent herein, though has, purchased only 2/3 share in the suit property, is putting up huge constructions in the entirety of the suit property without actually having his 2/3rd share divided by metes and bounds...
Tag this Judgment!Arumainayagam and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1969
ORDERSingaravelu, J.1. The revision petitioners have been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, for an offence under Sections 7(1) and (2) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(la) and (a) and (m) and 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and Rule 42(m) of the Rules framed thereunder. In that, on 14-6-1979 at 5.00 p.m. the first petitioner had sold compounded asafoetida for sale which was manufactured by the second petitioner and that on analysis the sample was found to contain foreign resin. The Food Inspector was examined as P. W. 1 and P. W.2 who is a mahazar witness, as usual, turned hostile. The accused contended that the asafoetida was not kept for sale and that it was kept only for treatment of cattle disease. The accused also examined a witness (D.W. 1) to the effect that the concerned article was kept in the lumber-room where the damaged articles were kept.2. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused and...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Venkatachalam Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, by Its Div ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ59
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 22,812/-with subsequent interest and costs.2. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is as follows:- The plaintiff is the husband of late Nachiammal. Nachiammal had taken out two life insurance policies under Policy Nos. 12034935 and 44550825. The former was for Rs. 10,000/-and the latter was for Rs. 20,000/-. The insured Nachiammal died on 1.2.1973 suddenly at Vellore, where she had gone to her son's house, and where she was a partner in a business under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Textiles'. On 7.3.73 the plaintiff, who was the nominee in both the above insurance policies, applied to the defendant for payment of the amount due under them. The plaintiff had also enclosed the original policies, death certificate, and filed the claim after observing all the formalities. The defendant accepte...
Tag this Judgment!K.Al.Rm.Rm. Alagappan Vs. Rajaguru and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad353; (1985)1MLJ331
ORDER1. The above revision is filed by the judgment-debtor-petitioner herein (fourth defendant in the suit) questioning the correctness of the order of the executing Court in E. P. 197 of 1983 in O. S. 21 of 1978 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, dt. 2-3-1984.2. It appears from the facts of the case and also as argued by the respective counsel appearing for the parties that the respondent herein obtained a decree against the petitioner herein in O. S. 21 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E. P. 197 of 1983, under. O. 21 Rr. 22, 37, and 38 C. P. C. seeking arrest of the fourth defendant-petitioner herein. It was contended by the petitioner herein that the decree-holder-respondent cannot execute the decree against the petitioner as per the terms of the agreement Ex. B. 1. It is on this ground it was contended by the judgment-debtor that he is not entitled to pay the decree amount nor is he liable to be arrested...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Silas Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ78
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appeal is admitted and the Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.2. There are two contentions raised in this appeal. The first contention is that the order of suspension of the licence to carry on retail business in rice and paddy has expired on 7th July, 1984, as the order had been made on 7th April, 1984; because under Clause 18 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, the only jurisdiction of the licensing authority, appellate authority, Collector or Commissioner is to suspend the licence 'for a period not exceeding ninety days pending enquiry'. It is true that the appellant has not specifically averred that any particular officer of the Government has prevented him from carrying on the business, and nobody on the part of the Government has urged that the licence continued to be suspended beyond the period of ninety days as contended by the learned Government Pleader but that would be too technical a view of t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ranganathan Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ124Mad
ORDER1. In the present writ petition, we are concerned with the service in the Town and Country Planning Department of State Tamil Nadu. There were five categories as follows. (i) Architectural Assistant (Special); (ii) Planning Assistant (Special); (iii) Architectural Assistant; (iv) Planning Assistant; (v) Supervisor. The petitioners are in the category of Architectural assistant. All the categories are feeder posts to the post of Assistant Director. They formed a common channel for promotion. No classification for promotion was envisaged as between them on the basis of educational qualification as degree holders and non-degree holders. There was no ratio fixed inter se between them. There was an integrated seniority list and the post of Assistant Director was filled up taking note of the seniority in the integrated seniority list. The Third Pay Commission made some suggestions. The merging of all the five categories into a single group was recommended. There was a suggestion that pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pormusamy Pandaram Vs. the Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad33
ORDER1. The third defendant in 0. S. 474 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruchengode, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by way of digging foundations, etc. The suit properties are in particular survey numbers, viz., S. Nos. 289/2 to 289/19 in the concerned village. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are trying to put up foundations in the western portion of S. Nos. 289/2 and 289/11. The third defendant had filed a written statement and, according to him, S. No. 289/1 belongs to him and the foundations put up by him are only within the portion of S. No. 289/1.2. Hence, the moot question that apparently comes up for adjudication on the pleadings is as to whether the foundations put up by the 3rd defendant are within S. No. 28...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal and Etc. Vs. Raman Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad222
Swamikkannu, J 1. The Defendant Rajammal in O.S. No. 389 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, is the appellant in A.S. No. 597 of 1978. The defendant Palaniappan in O.S. No. 391 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, is the appellant in A. S. No. 598 of 1978.2. O.S. No. 389 of 1976 is a suit filed by the plaintiff Raman Kutty, in form a pauperis, against the defendant Rajammal for a decree declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant as nominal and for directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property.3. O.S. No. 391 of 1976 is a suit filed by the same plaintiff Raman Kutty, in forma pauperis, against the defendant Palaniappan for a decree declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant as nominal and for directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property.4. Both the suits 0. S. No. 389 of 1976 and O.S. No. 391 of 1976 were disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Mudaliyar Vs. Balambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad363
ORDER1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the respondent in 0. P. 13 of 1981, District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, has been preferred against the order dismissing the application filed tinder Ss. 151 and 152, C.P.C., praying for an amendment of the decree. 0. P. 13 of 1981 was an application filed by the respondent herein under S. 17(l) of the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a declaration of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the petitioner, who was a debtor under the Act. On 25-2-1984, after a consideration of the evidence led in by both sides, the learned District Munsif declared the amount due by the petitioner to the respondent at Rs. 14339 with interest at 9%) per annum on Rs. 8800 from the date of the filing of the 0. P. viz. 8-9-1979 and subsequent interest at WYO per annum, till date of the discharge. 15 days time was granted to the respondent for the payment of court-fee and there is no dispute now that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »