Chennai Court February 1986 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras and ors. Vs. Madras Fert ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC64; 1986LC90(Madras); 1987(27)ELT48(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against the common order of Varadarajan, J. as he then was, in two writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 152 and 455 of 1977 filed by the Madras Fertilizers Limited, the respondent herein, for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari and another writ of Mandamus. Aggrieved by the issue of a rule by the learned Judge in the two Writ petitions, the respondents therein have preferred these two writ appeals. 2. The appeals lie within a narrow compass. What the respondent would contend is that an order passed by the Government of India in its order No. 276/76 dated 18.2.1976 has clinched the controversy in favour of the respondent and consequently, the appellants are not entitled to reopen the file and demand payment of excise duty or refuse to refund the excise duty already collected. 3. The facts relating to the matter in debate between the parties are as follows :- The respondent-company is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sundararaj, Vs. Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ53Mad
ORDER1. Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the respective affidavits filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue Writs of Mandamus directing the first respondent in all the petitions to consider the petitioner in each of the petitions to the post of General Manager (Production) for the Madras unit of the first respondent in the place of the second respondent herein. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Friday the 29th day of November, 1985, Fridays the 6th and 20th days of December, 1985, and Friday the 3rd day of January 1986, upon persuing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof, the orders of the High Court, dated 11th December 1984, W.P. No. 12337 of 1984 and dated 18th December 1984 in W.P. Nos. 12515 and 12516 of 1984 and made herein, and the Counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer abovesaid and comprised in th...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramachar Vs. the Deputy Commr., H.R. and C.E. Admn. Dept. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ63
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee of Uthiradi Srivaishnava Ramanuja Koodam, Triplicane, Madras which is declared to be a temple within the meaning of Section 9(12) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the. Act, by the Supreme Court of India. He challenges the charges that are framed against him by the 1st respondent, Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Admn. Department, in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 12894/-83-A-1 dated 19.9.1983 and asks for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the said proceedings in so far as it related to the charges.2. At the outset, it is essential to notice that the Writ Petitioner filed W.P. No. 9076 of 1983, D. Ramachander v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Nungambakkam, Madras-34 and Anr. on the file of this Court wherein he challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. 12894/83-A1, dated 19.9,1983 in so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjammal and anr. Vs. Arulmigu Nachadaithavirtharulia Swami Thirukoil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ224
Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 79 of 1974, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, who are the wife, sons and daughters respectively of one' P.K. Gurusamy Raja, are the appellants in this appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein (Temple, for short) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,300.69 p. with interest from out of the assests of late P.K. Gurusamy Raja in the hands of the appellants. There is no dispute that the Temple owns a tope of an extent of 85-50 acres situate in Muthusamipuam and North Devadanam villages. On 15th June, 1957, an auction was conducted for the lease of the tope for three faslis from fasli 1367 to fasli 1369 and in that auction deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja was the highest bidder for Rs. 20,000 and he executed a lease deed containing certain terms and conditions, which need not be noticed in detail for purposes of this appeal. Subsequently, for faslis 1370 to 1372 (1st Duly 1960 to 3oth June, 1963), deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja became the less...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanraj Kataria and ors. Vs. V. Balasubramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ435
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the appellate authority, viz, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.A. No.585 of 1983 on the file of his Court.2. The first revision petitioner is the father and revision petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons. They jointly purchased a house bearing door No. 24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. The respondents, who are tenants, were already in occupation of two portions of the ground-floor in the rear side of the house with independent access to the public road from the rear side. After purchasing the house, the three petitioners entered into an oral partition and allocated different portions of the house to each one of them. Under the said family arrangement and partition, the portion in the occupation of the respondents was allotted to the share of the third petitioner. After attornment of tenancy, the respondents have been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 60 and Rs. 90 respectively to the th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Thangam Vs. P.K. Madhavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ291
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by a landlady whose petition under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the respondent-tenant was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the said order of dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.2. It is common ground that the ground floor of the building owned by the petitioner has been rented out to third parties and that the petitioner and the other members of her family including her son are living in the first floor. Independent of the main building, there is a shed or structure, which has been leased out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. It is stated that the respondent is. carrying on the business of a camera mechanic.3. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that her son Srikrishnan, who has been examined as P.W.I. is employed in a company and that the shed in the occupat...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Dinakaran Vs. S.L. Chinnakuppuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ124
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. This revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been preferred by a tenant, who is aggrieved against an order of eviction passed by the appellate authority against him under Section 10 (2)(iii) of the Act.2. Admittedly the respondent herein, who is the landlord, has leased out the petition premises to the petitioner for nonresidential purposes, to wit, running a hotel. Originally the petitioner had taken the building on lease from the respondent's father, but subsequently on partition in the family, the petitioner had attorned the tenancy to the respondent and has been paying the agreed rent of Rs. 100 per month. On the ground that the tenant had committed acts of waste in the building and thereby impaired materially the value and utility of the building, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 559 of 1978 under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act for evicting the petitioner. Besides rec...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagarajan Vs. Krishnama Raja and 16 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ232
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The plaintiff who was a minor when O.S. No. 24 of 1979 was filed and has since become a major, and has lost the case in both the Courts below, is the appellant before me.2. The said suit was filed on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai for partition and separate possession of his 1/12th share in A Schedule properties excluding the properties described in B Schedule, and for mesne profits from May, 1973, and costs.3. I may at once state that the facts are not in controversy. The undisputed facts are as follows: - The plaint A schedule properties originally belonged to the joint family consisting of Muthia Raja, his sons and grandsons. Muthia Raja died in or about 1945. Defendants 1 to 6 are the sons of deceased Muthia Raja. Defendants 7, 8 and 14 are the sons of the 1st defendant. Defendants 9 and 10 are the sons of the 2nd defendant. 11th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. Defendants 12 and 13 are the sons of the 4th d...
Tag this Judgment!T. Panneerselvam Vs. A. Baylis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad284
1. The defendant in O.S. 158 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is aggrieved against the order made in I.A. 667 of 1985 in which the learned Subordinate Judge granted interim injunction restraining the present appellant from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the respondent's application under 0. 9, R. 9, C.P.C.2. At the outset, as pointed out already, this is a mere interim order passed in the presence of both the parties. This will show that no final order has been passed in the application, Nonetheless, Mr.Govindarajan learned counsel for the appellant very seriously argues that the Court below cannot pass an order of injunction pending an application under 0. 9, R. 9, C.P.C. because the suit itself is no more on the file of the Court. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon Ram Sarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Oudh 345. The learned Judicial Commissioner has held that the Court cannot grant temporary injunctio...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Nagaraj Vs. Thiruammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ395
Shanmukham, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Nilgiris, is aggrieved against the Order of dismissal of his application, I.A. No. 110 of 1984 filed under Order 9, Rule 13,0f the Code of Civil Procedure.2.Mr.Palpandian, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, there is no service on the appellant herein within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 19A and therefore, the Court shall make an Order setting aside the decree as against him. The Learned Counsel would emphasize on the word 'shall' employed in Order 9, Rule 13. The Court below held that ,as under Ex. B1, Ex. R4 notice was acknowledged by the appellant's wife and as the appellant did not examine his wife, there was valid service within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 15.3. The question that falls for determination therefore is whether on the facts in this case Order 5, Rule 15 or Order 5, Rule 19A is attracted. It may be useful to refer to certain dates at this juncture. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »