Chennai Court October 1985 Judgments
L.R. Raja Vs. Sha Rikhabdas Suresh Kumar by Partner, Maganlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ108
ORDERS.A. Khader, J.1. The revision is against the order of the 7th Assistant Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in I.A.No. 6767 of 1983 in O.S. No. 8210 of 1981. The petitioner therein, who is the 3rd defendant is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent herein filed the above suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note dated 13.7.1978 for Rs. 5,000 executed by the first defendant and one L.T. Pandian, who is no more and whose heirs are defendants 2 and 3. The consideration for the promissory note was paid by cheque. The promisors paid interest for 5 months and defaulted to pay the subsequent interest due on the principal. To recover the full amount the plaintiff filed the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants 1 and 2 remained absent. The third defendant, who is the revision petitioner, entered appearance and filed an application in I.A. No. 11170 of 1982 for leave to defend the suit. On 17.8.1982 the said application was dismissed for default a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Thulukka Choodamani Mariamman Temple Etc. by Executive Officer, R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ465
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The 5th defendant in O.S. No. 112 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Rasipuram is the appellant before me. It appears the suit was filed originally in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal as O.S. No. 167 of 1977.2. Two questions are raised before me by the counsel on both sides as arising out of the judgments and decrees of the courts below. They are, (1) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 112 of 1979 are entitled to appropriate the coconut bunches and the plantain bunches offered by the worshippers during annual festival in the month of Panguni to the deity of the suit temple, and (2) whether the suit is barred under Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.3. The suit temple is Sri Thulukka Choodamani Amman, an ancient temple at Pudupatti village, Rasipuram Taluk. The plaintiffs, four in number, representing the hereditary poojaries of the said suit temple sued the defendants for declaration that they ar...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. Chinnaswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad316
1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in his suit O.S. 72 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharopuram, but lost in the respondents' appeal A.S.155 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Erode, is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The appellant brought the said suit for redemption of the mortgage, for recovery of possession and for recovery of mesne profits. The appellant, along with one Muthuswami Gounder, executed Ex. BI registration copy of which is marked as Ex. Al dt. 27-7-1924 in favour of Kuppana Gounder. At the time of filing of the suit, Kuppanna Gounder was no more and therefore his legal representatives were the defendants (respondents herein). Accordingly, the appellant, as the mortgagee was in possession for more than 30 years, the mortgage got discharged by virtue of S. 9A of Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1938, that Muthuswami Gounder passed away, that on his demise, the interest of the said Muthuswami Gounder devolved on the appellant and that, therefore, the app...
Tag this Judgment!M. Syed Mydeen and anr. Vs. M.S. Khaja Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ486
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. Very rarely do interesting question on Mohamedan Law fall for consideration. The present appeal poses two nice questions for solution.2. Let me now turn to facts which are not in dispute. Indeed, the disposal of this appeal depends upon the construction of a deed of gift, executed by the grandfather of the respondents, by name, Myatti Mohammedu Masthan Lebbai. The document is marked as Ex.A-1, dated 9.3.1939. I will be referring to the relevant portions in the said document in due course.3. According to the respondents who came forward with O.S. No. 779 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli, under the said gift deed, the suit properties are to be enjoyed by their father for his life and thereafter by the respondents absolutely. Also according to the respondents, the true intention of the settlor (their grandfather) as per the terms of the deed read as a whole is that their father should enjoy the usufructs of the property only without ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Selvavinayagam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ87
ORDER1. This writ petition relates to the revision of the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records from 10.10.1924 to 23.8.1926. As the petitioner's attempt to have the age corrected in the service records proved of no avail, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order of the first respondent in G.O.Rt. No. 883 Food and Co-operation dated 3.9.1982 and for directions being issued to the respondents to correct the date of birth and thereby enable him to have the benefit of extended service till the date of superannuation as per the corrected age.2. The petitioner joined Government Service on 19.11.1947. He date of birth was entered in the service register as 10.10.1924. In course of time the petitioner came to be promoted and posted as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the year 1967 the petitioner found that his date of birth is 23.8.1926 and no...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sundaram Motors Vs. the Presiding Officer 2nd Additi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ48Mad
ORDER1. First respondent - Labour Court in I.D. No. 129 of 1980 passed an award on 29th January, 1984 directing Petitioner - Management to reinstate the second respondent with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally perverse. By its order dated 1st December, 1983, it found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and it was in no way vitiated. It is by virtue of Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, on re-appraising the entire evidence, it found that none of the charges framed against the petitioner resulted in a conclusion being drawn that he was guilty and as the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were basically wrong and not warranted by the evidence on record, it held that those findings are liable to be set aside and consequently, the non-employment of second respondent was not justified. 2. Mr. M. R. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner - Management straightwa...
Tag this Judgment!V. Prasad Vs. State Bank of India, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ404Mad
ORDER1. The petitioners are employees of the State Bank of India. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6860 of 1985 is attached to the Ganapathy Branch, Coimbatore. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9205 of 1985 is attached to the Santhome Branch, Madras. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6860 of 1985 has been visited with an order by the respondent therein, who is the Branch Manager, on 15th April, 1985 the contents of which run as follows : 'STAFF : AWARD You have not completed the allotted working of writing the C & I SB DAY Book on 12th April, 1985 even though the relevant Day Book and vouchers were given to you in time. You should have completed the work but you have deliberately left the work unfinished. Therefore, you are not eligible for wage for 1 - hour on 12th April, 1985. 2. This is without prejudice to the Bank's right to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against you in this regard. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9205 of 1985 was given an order by the respondent therein, who is the Branch Mana...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Devadoss (Died) and ors. Vs. N. Srikantiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ93
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioners herein are the tenants. The respondent herein filed H.R.C. Nos. 190, 191 and 193 to 195 of 1977 before the learned Rent Controller of the Nilgiris for eviction of the petitioners in these revisions and two others, who occupied different portions of the petition-mentioned building, on the ground that the building is old and dilapidated and it requires demolition and reconstruction. It is further alleged that the respondent herein is possessed of sufficient funds to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction and he also obtained necessary permission from the Municipality.2. The said petitions were resisted by the tenants on the ground that the claim of the respondent herein is not bona fide, that the allegations that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is very old are all false and that the same are alleged in order to secure higher rate of rent and even to dispose of the building.3. All the petitions were tried jointly. The r...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Rajakumari Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ247
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Though submissions were made in the interim applications, practically they covered the controversy in the main writ petition which comes up for admission after notices of motion. Hence both Mr. V.P. Raman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the second respondent, wanted to have their submissions treated as submissions in the main writ petition itself. The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction forbearing the first respondent herein from granting any renewal to the 2nd respondent of licence to locate and run the cinema theatre in the petitioner's premises Rajakumari Theatre at Thiagaraya Road, Madras-17.... 2. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the theatre. The second respondent is stated to ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthan and ors. Vs. Srinivasan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ210
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession and mesne profits. The suit was decreed for injunction on the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession against which A.S. No. 895 of 1978 has been filed. The suit properties are covered by inam title deed Nos. 2491, 2492, 2494, 2497 and 4479. The properties are part of Athanur village in Thirumayam taluk. These lands were notified and taken over under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) with effect from 23rd August, 1965. Thereafter, the plaintiffs claimed ryotwari patta and their claim was conceded by the Assistant Settlement Officer and a ryotwari patta was issued on 4th May, 1972.2. Some of the defendants preferred an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer to the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Pudukottai, in I.T.C.M.A. N0. 15 of 1975. That appeal was dismissed o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »