Chennai Court October 1985 Judgments
M.A. Abdul Gani Maricar and anr. Vs. Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC274; 1985(22)ELT788(Mad)
ORDER1. Though these writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari have been preferred by different petitioners, they are dealt with together as common questions arise for decision therein. 2. On the night of 24-6-1974, the officers of the Madras Custom House searched, on information, the premises bearing door No. 37 Mosque St. Madras 5 and recovered 142.79 kilograms of opium. When the search and seizure was nearing completion, one Jawa motor cycle bearing registration Nos. MSS 19 approached the premises with two riders and was stopped in front of it. The riders were questioned by the officers and they gave out their names as Mohammed Gazzali (petitioner in W.P. 3155 of 1980) and S. A. Mohammed Ghouse. On suspicion that the motor cycle might have been used for concealing gold bars, it was brought to the Custom House along with the riders and on an examination of the motor cycle in the presence of the riders as well as two other witness, it was found that 16 gold bars wei...
Tag this Judgment!R. Manjunath Vs. the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Mad22
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms : -'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's request for transfer and consequently admit him to the M. Tech. (Industrial Management) course in I.I.T. Madras, commencing in 1985.'Mr. S.K.L. Ratan appears for the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner's first choice in the order of preference was M. Tech. (Industrial Management) course in the first respondent institute. On 12-7-1985, the second respondent offered the petitioner admission to M. Tech. (Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering) Course. In this communication the second respondent notified as follows. 'If you accept the offer you may be considered for higher preferences as indicated i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Md. Yusuff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2011
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by the Fifth Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras. In appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, confirmed the conviction and the sentence and dismissed the appeal, The revision petitioner challenges the conviction and the sentence.2. Mr. Yusuff, the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the first accused) was arrested by P.W. 5 on 28-9-1972 at about 9-30 p.m. at Bangalore. That was in pursuance of a statement given by one Suban, who was arrested on 7-9-1972 at about 6-00 p.m. at Bangalore by the Sub-Inspector attached to C.B., C.I.D., Bangalore. The first accused gave a confession statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion of that statement, he took P.W. 5 to Madras Moore market and from his shop produced a Thermos flask, M.O. 3, which concealed about 30 pieces of counterfeit 5...
Tag this Judgment!Nathamuni Gounder and Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Represented by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ423Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners are employers. S. 30 of the Act enables the petitioners to file an appeal against the award. However, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the third proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 30 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to deposit the amount payable under the award before an appeal is entertained. The learned counsel would submit that the said proviso practically denies the right of appeal. I am not able to spell out that the said proviso denies the right of appeal as such. By enjoining the appellant to deposit the amount, the subject matter of the appeal, it cannot be stated that the appeal remedy is taken away. It is an age-old principle of law that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right attaching to any litigation. A right of appeal as such does not exist and cannot be assumed ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Iyenger Vs. the Indian Airlines Corporation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ385Mad; (1988)ILLJ388Mad
ORDER1. Petitioner these two writ petition is an Air Hostess employed in Indian Airlines Corporation. She would state that on 14th October 1982, as she fell sick, she could not report to duty, but sent a telegram to the Medical Doctor on 16th October 1982 regarding her continued illness. It was only on 16th March 1983, she was fit to report to duty and after securing a medical fitness certificate reported to duty on that date. As officials in the first respondent-Corporation were motivated, a charge-sheet dated 21st March 1983 was issued falsely claiming that she had absented from duty from 14th October 1982, to 15th March 1983 without prior intimation, and further claiming that three letters addressed to her have been returned unserved. She gave her explanation claiming that in spite of having changed her residential address which was to the knowledge of the Corporation and as every day the pick-up transport had come and taken her from the place where she was living, the three communi...
Tag this Judgment!Haricnandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad129
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in Mu. Mu. No. 1244/84 dt. 4-9-1984, rejecting the application put in by the petitioner for the grant of a mining lease to quarry grey granite under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant such a lease to the petitioner in relation to an extent of about 8 acres in Survey No. 121, Modikkupparn village, Krishnagiri taluk Dharmapuri district. The petitioner claims to be a repatriate from Ceylon. With a view to rehabilitate himself and also to support his family, the petitioner is stated to have applied on 16-5-1984 for the grant of a mining lease for quarrying, grey granite. The application so put in by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order relying upon G.O. Ms. No. 960 Industries, dt. 16-8-1984, under which the State Government has...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanaprakasam Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ223
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner, who got his name registered as a cultivating tenant under Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 claims that first respondent while passing the impugned order dated 4th February, 1984, had exceeded his jurisdiction conferred under the Act. Fourth respondent, who has since been impleaded, claims that, he is the real owner of the property as per will dated 20th February, 1984, and that behind his, back, as if third respondent is the owner of the property, petitioner had secured an order illegally on 18th August, 1983, recording himself as the cultivating tenant. This collusive order is not binding upon him, as he had no notice of such a claim.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order was passed by the first respondent as an Appellate Authority, under the Act, and under Section 6 no 'suo motu' power having been conferred upon him, when he could exercise appellate powers only at the instance of parties and not on his own, the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›