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.
Fathima Automobiles Vs. P.K.P. Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad318
Ramanujam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. in W. P. 7351 of 1981, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has got a right of suit against the order dated 26-8-1981, passed by the Rent Controller in W. P. 943 of 1980 in E. P. 762 of 1980 in H. R. C. 986 of 1977 on the file of the Small Cause Court, Madras.2. The circumstances under which the said writ petition came to be filed before this Court may be briefly stated. Respondent 1 herein had obtained an order of eviction against his tenants in H. R. C. 986 of 1977. In those proceedings, there was no resistance at all on the part of the tenants. However, the appellant herein obstructed delivery of possession and therefore respondent 1 filed an application for removal of obstruction in W. P. 943 of 1980. The appellant resisted the said application for removal of obstruction contending that he is not one claiming any rights under the tenants against whom the order...
P.G. Viswanathan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad146
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorified mandamus or other directions calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G. O. Ms. No. 742, R.D.&L.A.;, dt. 14th May, 1984 and to quash the same and to direct the third respondent to take action for demolishing the illegal construction put up by the fourth respondent in the premises mentioned in the petition and to prosecute the fourth respondent for the said illegal construction.2. The petitioner's case is to the following effect: The petitioner, who is a leading E.N.T. Specialist owns a house situate at No. 10-C, Govind Singh Road, R. S. Puram, Coimbatore. Immediately north of the petitioner's house, there is a plot of land of an extent of 4.300 sq.ft. belonging to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent began construction work on the said plot some months ago. The petitioner was under the impression that only a single dwelling house was being...
Ranjit Export Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC150; 1985(5)LC1618(Madras); 1985(21)ELT353(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to release the 39 bales of fabrics in respect of which orders of detention have been passed under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Let us take the facts as delineated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent for the purpose of finding out the justification or otherwise in law for the order of detention of the goods and the demand of the petitioner for their release. The petitioner filed four shipping bills, Nos. 00799 dated 21-5-1984, 00816 dated 22-5-1984, 00896 dated 22-5-1984 and 00859 dated 23-5-1984. The four shipping bills covered 41 bales of silk fabrics of various varieties, valued at Rs. 5,48,828.80 CIF. The shipping documents were prepared and the goods were shown to the Central Silk Board authorities for certifying as to the correctness of the description in the invoices. It was certified by them on the in...
Sobana Bai Vs. S. Eppsi (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad315
1. The first plaintiff appeals. The suit out of which the appeal,arose was laid under the following circumstances. One Sivagnanam died in the year 1964 leaving him surviving nine children, viz, plaintiffs I to 3, one Rathna Bai represented by plaintiffs 4 and 5, defendants I to 4 and one Aseri whose wife is the 11 the defendant and whose children are defendants 7 and 8. Out of these nine children, defendants 1 and 2 and Azari are sons and the others are daughters. The appellant herein, 1st plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. 62 of 1968 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, against her other brother, sisters and their successorsin right. In that suit she stated that her father demised 50cents of land as Stridhanam after her marriage and accordingly he surrendered possession of that portion of the land in the suit properties. She prayed for a. declaration of title and possession in respect of that portion of the land. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the gr...
Maimoon Bi Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas352(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident case. The appellant is the wife of the one Mohamed Ismail who met with an accident on March 7, 1981, and died as a result of the same at the spot. It is stated that he was standing in lorry TMS No. 9097 and due to the negligent driving of the lorry by the driver he was overthrown from the lorry and then run over by the same lorry. The first respondent is the insurance company. The third respondent is the registered owner. The vehicle was insured with the first respondent and the policy for the same stood in the name of the third respondent. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and that, therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation. The Tribunal also fixed the compensation at Rs. 36,000. The correctness of the quantum is now not in dispute. However, the Tribunal directed the second respondent alone to be liable and dismissed the claim as...
Sri. Rani Lakshmi Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad66
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Cl. 21(5 ) of Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, and a notification issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Cl. 20 and sub-clause (5) of Cl. 21 of the said Order issued on 29th of June, 1979, has been challenged.2. We shall deal with the facts of the case in W.Ps. 5396, and 5397 of 1979, and W.P. 1958 of 1980 and W.Ps. Nos. 3041 and 3042 of 1980. The petitioner in W.P. 5396 of 1979 is a company known as Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning. Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., which has been manufacturing yarn since the inception of the mill in 1961 only in cones and the yarn packed in cones is used for manufacture of cloth by power looms. The petitioner herein at no point of time had any reeling machine which is required for packing the yarn in hank form.3. The petitioner in W.P. 1958 of 1980 is M/s. Nagammai Cotton Mills which is a partnership concern. In these mills also right...
Maimoon Bi Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC73; AIR1985Mad270
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant in a motor accident case. The appellant is the wife of one Mohamed Ismail who met with an accident on 7-3-1981, and died as a result of the same at the spot. It is stated that he was standing in lorry T.M.S. 9097 and due to the negligent driving of the lorry by the driver he was overthrown from the lorry and then ran over by the same lorry. The first respondent is the Insurance Company. The third respondent is the registered owner. The vehicle was insured with the first respondent and the policy for the same stood in the name of the third respondent. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and that therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation. The Tribunal also fixed the compensation at Rs. 36,000. The correctness of the quantum is now not in dispute However, the Tribunal directed the second respondent alone to be liable and dismissed the claim as against res...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. N. Thirugnanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)431
ORDERSengottuvelan, J. - This is a revision by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Agrl. ITO, Tiruchirapalli, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, passed in I.A. No. 105 of 1983 in C.M.A. No. 14 of 1983, directing the petitioner herein to produce the documents filed by the assessee one S. P. Nataraja Pillai, who is no more.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent herein, who is the son of late S. P. Nataraja Pillai, filed O. S. No. 1430 of 9182, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Karur, for a declaration that he is personally cultivating the agricultural lands mentioned in the plaint schedule and for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit properties. The second respondent herein contended that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties and as such he is entitled to the possession of the suit propertie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›