Chennai Court November 1985 Judgments
B. Selvaraj Vs. Sri Kamakshi Amman Devasthanam by Its Executive Truste ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ45
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.2. The respondent/plaintiff viz.,Sri Kamakshi Amman Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as the temple) filed the suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of possession of a small plot of land adjoining the temple with the following averments: The defendant took the suit plot on lease from the temple on 1.7.1968 aggreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 3/-per month and he put a superstructure with mud walls and thatched roofing for the purpose of using it as a cattle shed. He committed wilful default in the payment of rent and the temple issued a notice on 18.3.1974 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and also vacate the premises. The defendant sent a reply disputing the correctness of the amount and sought protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The defendant is not entitled to any protection. Thereupon, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder on 1.5.1974 terminating the tenancy by 30.5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Madras Gymkhana Club Vs. Presiding Officer Iii, Addition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR195]; (1986)IILLJ415Mad
ORDER1. These two writ petitions are filed by Management of Madras Gymkhana Club against similar orders passed by first respondent - Labour Court in claim petitions filed under S. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, on a preliminary point taken, as to whether Mr. Sanjay Mohan, a legal practitioner and who is a member of the said club, on an authority given by the vice-President of the club, could appear on behalf of management in the Labour Court, and whether it would not be against the provisions of S. 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Mr. Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners, would first submit that there was a total misconception regarding nature of membership in the petitioner - Club which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and now governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. 3. The first claim put forth is that, in the case of a membership club like that of the petitioner, every member of the club is an em...
Tag this Judgment!Ravee Malhotra and anr. Vs. Vijayaraghavalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ111
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The revision-petitioners have filed this application under Order 23, Rule 1 and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, for granting leave to the petitioners to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file a fresh petition for eviction on the very same cause of action and relief.2. In support of the application, the petitioners have filed an affidavit sworn to by the second petitioner. It is alleged that in view of the safeguard provided in the Act for the tenants and relying on the advice of the counsel, they did not take steps to let in necessary evidence to prove the bona fides and now they are advised to file this application to seek leave of the court to withdraw the petition and file a fresh eviction petition on the same cause of action. They further contended that more materials have to be brought on record to strengthen their bona fides and they should be giv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›