Chennai Court December 1986 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.
N.B. Namazi Vs. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad84; (1987)IIMLJ317
Mohan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Singaravelu, J. rendered in C.S. No. 184 of 1981. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: - The suit property is No. 49 Harrington Road Chetput, Madras-31. It is of an extent of 12 grounds and 974 sq. ft. It belongs to the defendent. The plaintiff herein is the Charitable Trust known as Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, which runs a school with about 1050 students on rolls.3. Originally, the plaintiff had taken the property from the defendant on lease from 1-5-1978, on payment of Rs. 750 per flat per month and later on an enhanced rent of Rs. 1500 per month for the entire property. Therefore, on and from that date the plaintiff was inducted into possession. While the matter stood thus, under Ex. P. 1, dt. 1-6-1974, the agreement of sale was entered into between the parties. The term of the agreement inter alia provided that the defe...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.A.R.N. Janarthanam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ45
T. Sathiadev, J.1. First of the two appeals is preferred by third respondent-Insurance Company in M.A.C.O.P. No. 75 of 1980 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai. Petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are the three respondents in the said appeal. C.M.A. No. 782 of 1981 is preferred by second respondent before the Tribunal, impleading other parties as respondents in the appeal.2. As common arguments have been advanced in both the appeals, they are dealt with together and ranking of parties is referred to as before the Tribunal.3. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for damages caused to his goods at about 10.30 p.m. on 5.7.1979 at a time when his goods were carried in second respondent's lorry bearing registration No. MSL. 771. He had booked a consignment of 42 borals of M.C.U.5 cotton worth Rs. 70,000 on 5.7.1979 from Jayam Ginning Factory at Then by the second respondent's lorry to be carried to Rajapalayam. Fre...
T.K. Subramania Pillai Vs. the Pennington Committee Through Its Secy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ39
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question that arises in the second appeal and the civil revision petition is whether the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. That in turn depends upon the question whether the subject-matter of the lease in his favour by the respondent-plaintiff was a land or a building?2. The trial Court held that the subject-matter of the lease was a land and that the defendant was entitled to purchase the land under Section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit and passed an order in favour of the defendant in his petition (O.P. No. 5 of 1977) for purchasing the land at the market value in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The lower appellate Court reversed the said conclusion of the Court and held that the subject-matter of the lease was a land and building and that it was not a lease of a mere vacant land and therefor...
N.B. Namazi Vs. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, by Its Trustee, Mrs. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ317
Mohan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Singaravelu, J. rendered in C.S. No. 187 of 1981. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The suit property is No. 49, Harrington Road, Chetput, Madras 31. It is of an extent of 12 grounds and 974 sq.ft. It belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff herein is the Charitable Trust known as Centre Chinmaya Mission Trust, which runs a school with about 1050 students on rolls.3. Originally, the plaintiff had taken the property from the defendant on lease from 1.5.1973, on payment of Rs. 750 per 'flat per month and later on an enhanced rent of Rs. 1,500 per month for the entire property. Therefore, on and from that date the plaintiff was inducted into possession. While the matter stood thus, under Ex. P1, dated 1st June, 1974, an agreements of sale was entered into between the parties. The terms of the agreement inter alia provided that ...
N. Balakrishnan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ43Mad
1. This is a petition for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 1270, Labour and Employment Department dated 21st October, 1978, quash the same and direct its reconsideration. By that Government Order, the 1st respondent refused to refer an industrial dispute relating to the non-employment of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was employed in the 2nd respondent Co-operative Stores as Assistant Cashier for about 13 years. He was placed under suspension pending an enquiry by order dated 26th March, 1976. Certain charges were framed against him on 10th May, 1976 and ultimately, on the ground that the charges have been proved, by an order dated 6th December, 1976, he was dismissed from service with retrospective effect from the date of suspension viz., 27th March, 1976. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the matter was taken up for conciliati...
Nirmala Industries, Uthagamandalam, Nilgirls Dt. by Its Sole Proprieto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ3
1. Three important questions of law as enunciated below, arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal. They are:(i) Whether an agreement for sale of the equity of redemption by a mortgagor during the pendency of a suit by the mortgagee for enforcement of the mortgage, will be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?(ii) Whether the holder of an agreement of sale can file an application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on deposit on the basis he is a person claiming interest in the property sold, and(iii) Whether the period of limitation for filing an application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, or by Order 21, Rule 92(2), C.P.C.?2. The facts giving rise to these questions of law are briefly as under : Respondents 3 to 9 were the owners of an item of property over which a mortgage was created in favour of the first respondent. On 23rd January, 1978 the first respondent filed a suit, O.S. No. 85 of 1978 o...
Angappa Gounder Vs. Sivanmalai Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ225
Sengottuvelan, J.1. In view of conflict of decisions noted by Swamikannu, J., regarding the validity of pre-existing mortgages on the passing of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, this matter is referred to this Bench for authoritative pronouncement.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: On 4.8.1943 one Karuppanna Gounder and his son Palanisamy Gounder usufructuarily mortgaged the suit properties in favour of one Muthusamy Gounder and three others. In lieu of interest, the mortgagees were allowed to enjoy the land for a term of five years. The mortgagees agreed to receive the mortgage amount and deliver possession of the properties to the mortgagor after the expiry of the term. While so, one Valliammal, the wife of Palanisamy Gounder of Sangarupalayam, obtained an assignment of the abovesaid mortgage on 7.6.1946. She had in turn assigned the mortgage in favour of the appellant, the first defendan...
Marie Lazarine Gacillia Rasson Represented by Her Power Agent and Husb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ153
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. The matter is posted before this Court regarding the maintainability of the petition on the question of limitation. The short point that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the petitioner is entitled to deduct the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order passed by the lower court in computing the period of limitation in filing the revision under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, hereinafter referred as Act. According to the petitioner, she applied for copy of the judgment in appeal MA. No. 45 of 1981 on 6.7.1983 though the order was passed on 18.6.1983. The copy was made ready on 18.7.1983 and the revision was filed on 2.9.1983. But under section 25 of the Act, a revision has to be filed within 60 days, even after the provision to extend the time limit by 30 days is taken into consideration, and there is a delay of 3 days. According to the petitioner, she applied for certified copy of th...
P. Ramalingam Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1986
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas85(Mad); 1987(12)ECC249; (1987)IMLJ485
David Annoussamy, J.1. This is a batch of nine appeals under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act. At the outset, we may indicate the particular nature of the proceedings out of which these appeals arise and the limited scope of these appeals as well. Whenever a penalty is to be levied under section 50, the Adjudicating Officer shall hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner after giving a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in the matter. As per section 52, the Appellate Board appointed by the Government on receipt of appeal may, after making such enquiry as they deem fit, affirm or modify the order appealed against. As per section 54, an appeal which would lie before this court should only be on questions of law. It is seen from these provisions that the first proceedings is in the nature of departmental enquiry and in the second proceedings, the department is one of the parties and the dealer is another party. 2. Th...
P. Ramalingam, Ambur Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement, Directorate, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad210
David Annoussamy, J. 1. This is a batch of 9 appeals under S. 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. At the outset we may indicate the particular nature of the proceedings out of which these appeals arise and the limited scope of these appeals as well. Whenever a penalty is to be levied under S. 50, the Adjudicating Officer shall hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner after giving a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in the matter. As per S. 52, the Appellate Board appointed by the Government on receipt of appeal may after making such enquiry as they may deem fit affirm or modify the order appealed against. As per S. 54, an appeal which would lie before this court should only be on questions of law. It is seen from these provisions that the first proceeding is in a nature of departmental enquiry and in the second proceedings the department is one of the parties and the dealer is another party.2. The facts of the case are s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »