Chennai Court April 1986 Judgments
C. Kamatchi Ammal Vs. Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad173; (1987)IMLJ376
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant petitioner, whose land is being acquired by the issue of a declaration under S. 6, Land Acquisition Act, is challenging the declaration under S. 6(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on grounds which we shall presently state. However, in order to appreciate the contentions raised before us and originally raised in the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, it is necessary to refer to certain facts on which the appellant claims a relief of quashing the declaration under S. 6 of the Act dt. 3-121983. The land in question was taken on lease by respondent 1 which is a Public Transport Corporation for a period of five years from 1-4-1974. In pursuance of certain arrangements, which according to the appellant, were arrived at between the landowner and the Corporation, the Corporation was to pay an additional rent of Rs. 750 per month, a sum of Rs. 4500 by way of advance and was to execute a lease for ten years from ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu and Vs. Munusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ436Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The writ appeal is by the respondent in W.P. 5160 of 1982 [reported in : (1984)ILLJ466Mad . The respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. For convenience sake, we shall refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. The principles having been well settled by the pronouncement of the highest court in the land and the same having been followed by Ramanujam J, who disposed of the writ petition, allowing the same, we do not think that we should strain much over the legal position, except to set out the factual features, which do justify the application of the said principles to the said facts. The petitioner is working as an Amin in the District Court, Madurai, and he is also the President of the Tamil Nadu Amin's Association. He approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer :- 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramaswamy Vs. Dhandayuthapani Finance, Sankari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad360
ORDER1. Defendant is the petitioner. Plaintiff filed 0. S. 41 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari, based on a promissory note dated 3-12-1985 for Rs. 50,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Pending disposal of the suit. I. A. 174 of 1986 was filed under Order 38 Rule 5 read with S. 151, C.P. C. for attachment to be effected before judgment of Ashok Leyland Lorry as described in the schedule, and which belongs to defendant.2. In the supporting affidavit, it was claimed that in spite of repeated demands, the amount had not been paid, and as the lorry owner is heavily indebted to several persons, and with a view to defraud the plaintiff defendant was making arrangements to sell the said lorry to one Palanisami about which he had come to know through one Sengoda Gounder, and as such, attachment before judgment of the property mentioned in the petition has to be ordered if the respondent fails to furnish proper security after notice to the respondent. Otherwise the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Bottling Co. P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas770(Mad)
Sengottuvelan, J. 1. The petitioners herein have filed the above criminal miscellaneous petitions to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 17820 of 1981, 1456 of 1982, 1457 of 1982, 1458 of 1982 and 1459 of 1982, respectively, on the file of the Economic Offences Court No. II, Egmore, Madras. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The first petitioner in all these petitions, namely, the company, the second petitioner, who was the then director of the company, and the third petitioner, a past director, are prosecuted for violation of the provisions of section 58A(3), section 58A(4) and section 58A(5) of the Companies Act 1956, for not refunding the deposits taken by the company within the prescribed time. The provision of section 58A provides for a punishment of imprisonment up to five years. 3. Originally, under the Companies Act, prior to the introduction of section 58A, there was no prohibition for companies against receiving deposits and, subsequently, under a regulation iss...
Tag this Judgment!E. Kesavan Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prosecution) Preventive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT640(Mad)
1. Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying the High Court to revise the Order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in C.A. No. 71/81 (C.C. No. 10113/80 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras). This petition coming on for hearing on Friday the 4th day of April 1986, upon perusing the Petition, and the Judgment of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Abdul Ghani, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, and the Case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order :- The revision petitioner has been convicted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment. On appeal by the revision petitioner/accused, the learned Principal Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pillai Vs. Chellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ15
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The order of the Court below is unsustainable. The application filed by the respondents herein was for withdrawal of the claim made in the suit on behalf of the fourth respondent-fourth plaintiff, who admittedly was a minOrder Under the Proviso to Rule 1 of Order 23, Code of Civil Procedure, where a plaintiff is a minor, no part of the suit claim shall be abandoned without the leave of Court. Further, an application has got to be made for such abandonment, supported by an affidavit of the next friend and in cases where a minor or next friend is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the proposed abandonment, in his opinion, is for the benefit of the minOrder Thereafter, the Court must satisfy itself, that the proceedings are likely to fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter and then it may proceed to grant ...
Tag this Judgment!Kappurama Mudaliar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ88
ORDERSingaravelu, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The /plaintiff filed the suit against the State of Tamil Nadu and two. others for a declaration that the revenue sale held by the Revenue Authorities on 9.10.1973 is null and void. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction under Section 25(d) of the Court-Fees Act. A check-slip was issued by the Court-fee Examiner pointing out that the suit should be valued and court-fee paid under Section 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act on the market value of the property. There was an enquiry and the trial Court found that the suit should be valued under Section 40(1) of the Court-Fees Act. A revision was preferred against that order and the same was dismissed. Later, the trial Court held that in this suit, the plaintiff should value the subject-matter at its market value. The Plaintif is aggrieved by this order and has come on revision,2. I have heard Learned Counsel on both sides and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Nippon Yeesen Kaisha Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad12
ORDER1. The appellant in this second appeal has to succeed on a very subtle and convincing point pressed forth by Mr. S. Krishna srivasan appearing for M/s King and partridge, learned counsel for the appellant. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a carrier in respect of a particular quantity of urea shipped from Tokyo to Nagapattinam. The plaintiffs are the consignees. The shippers of consignors were Mitsubishi Corporation, Tokyo. The plaintiffs sued the first defendant and its agent the second defendant for damages to the tune of Rs. 3,045-20 for short delivery to the extent of 1.100 metric tons of urea. Both the courts below have countenanced the case of the plaintiffs. As such the first defendant is mulcted with the decree as asked for.2. In this second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court this court, at the ' time of its admission, formulated the following substantial qu...
Tag this Judgment!Suman and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad318
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. Two questions of law have been framed by the Division Bench which according to the learned Judges required consideration by a Full Bench. The two questions are as follows :(1) Whether the failure of the Advisory Board to adjourn the hearing when it rejected at the time of the hearing the detenu's request for the assistance of a legal practitioner even in the absence of such a request by the detenu, will vitiate the order of detention. (2) Whether the confessional statement made by the detenu to the police officer is admissible in cases of detention under a Preventive Detention Act such as Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. We are not concerned with the merits of the detention order passed against the detenu-petitioner. It is therefore not necessary to refer to the grounds on which the petitioner had been detained. We are therefore setting out only such of the facts that are material for the decision of the two questions which have been canvassed before us.2. The Com...
Tag this Judgment!Hills Plantation Workers' Union (by Gen. Sec.) and Anr. Vs. Anamaila P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ77Mad
S. Nainar Sundaram J. 1. The prayers in the two writ petitions run on similar lines. In substance a writ of mandamus is being asked for in each of the writ petitions against the second respondent to see that the first respondent implements Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 7(1) of the Act lays down a general embargo that the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind, except those authorised by or under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 7, of the Act states that deductions from wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and may be of the kinds set out in the clauses following as (a) to (q) only - Clause (kkk) to Section 7(2) of the Act reads as follows:-'Deductions made, with the written authorisation of the employed person, for payment of the fees payable by him or the membership of any trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »