Chennai Court September 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.
Velusamy Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ981
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appellant-accused has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in that he, on 17-12-1978 at about 4-30 P.M. in the village of Melakadayanallur in Tenkasi taluk, committed the murder of his father Sangili by hitting him with a grinding stone on his head, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.2. This is a case of patricide in which a wayward son has done to death his aged father for refusing to give him money for his wayward expenses. The accused, his father and his two sisters by name Karuppi and Kaliammal were living together in the middle street in the Harijan Colony in Kelakadayanallur village in Tenkasi taluk. The mother of the accused died about four years ago. P.W.I is the deceased's younger brother's son and he lives , just west of the house of the deceased and the accused. P.W.2 is the deceased's wife's brother and lives in the same place. P.W.3 is a neighbour, who lives opposite to the ...
Bank of Madurai Ltd. Vs. Balaramadass and Brothers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad1; (1985)1MLJ245
David Annoussamy, J.1. This is an order of reference from a learned single Judge of this Court on - the point of jurisdiction.2. The suit is one on equitable mortgage by the deposit of title deeds for sale of the immovable property situated in Ooty, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The mortgage by deposit of title d was created at Madras and all the defendants reside in Madras. It was contended by, the defendants that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff retorted that a suit on mortgage for sale of the mortgage property was not a suit for land and that, therefore, was within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The controversy between the parties, therefore, turned on the point whether a suit on mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property was one for land or not. The learned single Judge after reviewing the position of law on this question found that he could not agree with the view taken recently by another single Judge, in the State Indu...
The Workmen Employed in Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Ashok Leyland Co-operat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ208Mad
ORDER1. On behalf of 89 workmen in respect of whose non-employment an industrial dispute was referred to the third respondent, the writ petition has been filed by the union to assail the validity and correctness to award passed by the third respondent. Admittedly, the employees were engaged in a canteen originally run by the first respondent. The running of a canteen was in compliance with the requirements of S. 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. The canteen was run from 1961 to 1971 and thereafter it was entrusted to a contractor, viz., a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Consequently, on the Co-operative Society taking over the canteen, the management of the canteen vested in the President and members of the Board of Directors of the Society. The Society incurred huge losses and eventually it ceased to function and the services of the employees were terminated. The employees contended that since the first respondent is statutorily bound to maintain a canteen, the e...
G. Annamalai Pillai Vs. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad357
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Under a registered deed dated 27-12-1971, the fourth respondent, father of the 5th respondent, executed a lease deed for a period of five years in respect of his minor son 5th respondent's separate property in favour of the appellant herein, on the date when the lease deed was executed, the fifth respondent was a minor, his date of birth being 27-94957. Claiming to be a cultivating tenant by virtue of the lease deed executed by the 4th respondent, the appellant filed an application before the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act 10 of 1969), praying to register him as a tenant in the tenancy records as per the provisions of the Act. The 5th respondent contested the said proceeding on the ground that the lands are his properties, that his father had no manner of right or title to deal with the same and lease the property contrary to the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Gu...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamilnadu Vs. the South Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ283Mad
Chandurkar, C.J.1. These writ appeals raise a question as to the validity of the order passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner made under S. 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Writ Appeal No. 393 of 1979 is filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging the order of Mohan, J. in Writ Petition No. 171 of 1975 in which Mohan, J., has taken the view that the only power of the Provident Fund Commissioner under S. 14-B of the Act is to levy damages, and such damages do not involve any element of penalty for non-payment or delayed payment of the employer's contribution. The learned Judge has also taken the view that merely because there is a delay or belated payment, the liability to pay damages is not automatically attracted. According to the learned Judge, the Provident Fund Commissioner has to apply his mind and examine the merits of each case before he assesses damages payable by an employer. ...
Bharat Pulverising Mills (P) Limited Vs. the Secretary to the Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ273
Ramaswamy, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 3668 of 1977 which was filed for quashing a portion of the order in G.O.Ms. No. 2625, Revenue dated 27.12.1976 and for appropriate directions.2. The appellant is a Company owning certain lands in Thiruvottiyur village. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax in his proceedings dated 17.8.1976 determined the total area of the land held by the appellant and the market value thereof as on 1.7.1971 and levied urban land tax in the sum of Rs. 93,873.77 and made a demand for payment of the same for the period from 1st July, 1975. This assessment order is questioned on the ground that in determining the market value as on 1.7.1971 for the purpose of determining the urban land tax payable by the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner should have taken the value as on 1.7.1971 at double the value as on 1.7.1963 as in the case of the urban land within the city of Madras applying G.O.Ms. No. 2625, Revenue dated 2...
The Management of the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pathiram an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ517Mad
ORDER1. The first respondent was appointed as a watchman of the appellant company originally on a temporary basis by an order dated 3rd September, 1964 with effect from 5th August, 1964 and later permanently on probation by another order dated 10th July, 1965. As per these appointment orders he has to report for duty daily at 5 p.m. and watch the office premises till 6.30 a.m. the next day or until such time in the morning when he would be relieved by any of the officers of the company or the peon when the office opens. The other terms and conditions of appointment are not very material for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal. The General Secretary of the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., S. R. Employees Association made a demand on behalf of the First Respondent for payment of overtime wages, on the ground that he had worked beyond the normal working hours and that therefore he is entitled to be paid overtime wages under S. 31 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 (h...
Ruth Margaret Gonsalves Vs. K.T.H. Presses by Its Proprietor, Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ405
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a revision petition by the landlady whose petition for eviction against the respondent-tenant filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii), of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) was allowed by the Rent Controller but the Order was set aside by the appellate authority.2. The landlady is admittedly the owner of shop No. 4 at No. 36, Mukathal Street, Madras-7. The tenant who deals in ready made clothes has a tailoring shop in the premises in question. He has two other premises in the same street in which he is carrying on business. Originally, the landlady had filed two petitions claiming possession on different grounds being H.R.C. Nos.3089 of 1979 and 3928 of 1980. Both of them were dismissed for default and it appears that the landlady also failed in her attempts to get these proceedings restored to file.3. The landlady then filed the present petition on 2nd April, 1982 on the ground that she was makin...
V.S. Meenakshisundaram and ors. Vs. Kaliyaperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ417
G. Maheswaran, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiffs and for recovery of Rs. 900/- towards damages. The suit property is called Thathankuttai Aru Pangu Annabishega Pudhuvadai. It is covered by Resurvey No. 111/13 in Vishnupuram Village. The plaintiffs claim title to suit property by virtue of certain purchases ranging from 1903 to 1929, According to them, they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that certain sales in their favour were made by registered documents and other sales were by unregistered documents and they are only to confirm the oral sales made by them. The plaintiffs have been paying kist and enjoying the coconut trees planted on the suit property. Though the extent is 20 cents, the road comprised one cent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are in illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs have to...
V. Subramania Padayachi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ342
ORDER1. The appellant herein claims to own about 15 standard acres of land in Vandipalayam village, Ulundurpet taluk. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the 3rd respondent herein (the Authorised Officer, Villupuram), to show cause as to why the excess land in his possession, should not be taken by the Government. The appellant filed his objection contending that he is not in possession of any excess land and that the lands in the name of his wife cannot be clubbed with the extent held by him for purpose of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The 3rd respondent herein, viz., the Authorised Officer, held that the petitioner is holding 28.47 ordinary acres of land in excess of the permissible holding and, therefore such excess lands will stand transferred to the Government. As against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, constituted under Section 76 of the Act. Under Section 76 b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »