Chennai Court September 1986 Judgments
Dharmalingam Vs. S. Mahalingam (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1989Mad1; (1987)IMLJ451
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision filed by the landlord arises out of the orders passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras on a petition filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, seeking a direction to the landlord to sell the petition land to the tenant for a price to be fixed by the Court. It appears that the original tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives have been brought on record They will, however, be described as a 'tenant' hereafter.2. The tenant's case was that he was a tenant under the grandfather of the present petitioner of an open site and he had put up a superstructure over the same. His further case was that he was also a tenant under the present petitioner-landlord and he was entitled to claim the right under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the several defences raised with reg...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Nadar and ors. Vs. K.V. Doraipandi Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad117; (1987)IMLJ33
1. The legal representatives of one Muniappa Nadar (1st appellant), who figured as the plaintiff in O.S. 226 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk, are appellants 2 to 6 in this second appeal. In that suit, Muniappa Nadar prayed for the relief of declaration of his exclusive title to the properties set out in he plaint therein and for an injunction restraining the respondents in this second appeal from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 2. The second respondent in this second appeal, Mayakaruppa Nadar, was the father of Muniappa Nadar (1st appellant), while the 1st respondent was related to him as aunt's son, being the son of one Thenammal, a sister of Mayakaruppa. According to the case of Muniappa, his father, Mayakaruppa and himself constituted members of a joint Hindu family, which owned the properties scheduled in O.S. 226 of 1975 as well as others. Mayakaruppa allowed Muniappa to be in possession and enjoyment of all the properties in O...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Nadar (Died) and ors. Vs. K.V. Doraipandi Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ33
Ratnam, J.1. The legal representatives of one Muniappa Nadar (1st appellant) who figured as the plaintiff in O.S. 226 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk, are appellants 2 to 6 in this second appeal. In that suit, Muniappa Nadar prayed for the relief of declaration of his exclusive title to the properties set out in the plaint therein and for an injunction restraining the respondents in this second appeal from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.2. The second respondent in this second appeal, Mayakaruppa Nadar, was the father of Muniappa (1st appellant), while the 1st respondent was related to him as aunt's son, being the son of one Thenammal, a sister of Mayakaruppa. According to the case of Muniappa, his father, Mayakaruppa and himself constituted members of a joint Hindu family, which owned the properties scheduled in O.S. 226 of 1975 as well as others. Mayakaruppa allowed Muniappa to be in possession and enjoyment of all the properties i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmalingam Vs. S. Mahalingam (Died) by L.Rs. Sivanandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ451
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision filed by the landlord arises out of the orders passed by the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on a petition filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, seeking a direction to the landlord to sell the petition land to the tenant for a price to be fixed by the Court. It appears that the original tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives nave been Drought on record. He will, however, be described as 'tenant' hereafter.2. The tenant's case was that he was a tenant under the grandfather of the present petitioner of an open site and he had put up a superstructure over the same. His further case was that he was also a tenant under the present petitioner-landlord and he was entitled to claim the right under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the several defences raised with re...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad161
1. These Writ Appeals have been preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and two others against the Common Judgment in W. P. Nos. 119 and 120 of 1974 allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a notification published under S. 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the' Land Ceilings Act') and for the issue of a Writ of mandamus to proceed with the acquisition of the lands, of an extent of 411.04 acres already notified, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The circumstances giving rise to the writ appeals are as under :The first respondent in these appeals is a Private Limited Company, of which the second respondent is the Managing Director, Large extents of land situate in the villages of Andipatti, Pudhachehu, Balasamudram and A. Kalayamputthur were owned by the respondents. We are concerned in these appeals with the extent of 253.31 acres in Balasamudram villa...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Gulati Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC328
V. Ratnam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 7189 of 1985 filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent herein in F.No. A22012/20/84. Ad. II (TRIB) dated 27-6-1985, cancelling its earlier order in F.No. 22012/20/84/ Ad. II (TRIB) dated 23-4-1985, appointing the appellant as Technical Member of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT').2. The appellant joined the Customs and Central Excise Service--Group 'A' in July, 1963 and after successfully completing a probation period of two years, worked as Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, till about December, 1973. He was thereafter promoted as Deputy Collector and with effect from, February, 1982, he functioned as Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras., From the middle of June, 1983, the appellant worked as Collector of Customs (Appeals), which post he held till 28...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Chakravarthy Vs. B. Manivannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC192
Maheswaran, J.1. On the 24th of August, 1977 at about 4-30 p.m , Manivannan, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 302 of 981 proceeded on his bicycle along Foxen Street, Perambur. At that time, a tractor driven by RW 2, Purushothaman, entered the street from the other end. Entry from the other end is prohibited and there is a board with 'No Entry' sign. Manivannan, on seeing the tractor, stopped his bicycle and rested his foot on the pavement. But the tractor, according to the allegations of the appellant, Manivannan, was driven rashly and negligently and knocked Manivannan. He fell down and sustained injuries. Spleen was cut. There was also a cut in the liver. He was taken to the hospital. Spleenectomy was performed on him. The liver that was torn was sutured. He also underwent an emergency operation. He was an in-patient for about fifteen days in the hospital and then was an out-patient. He filed an application through his father-guardian claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The T...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthammal Vs. Bysani Sriramulu Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ300
Srinivasan, J.1. Though the question involved-in the appeal has turned out to be one within a narrow cumpass, the litigation has had a chequered career spreading over a period of 16 years, the seeds whereof were sown even 12 years prior to its commencement.2. The suit properties admittedly belonged to Bysani Markandayalu Chetti, who died on 26th October, 193, leaving his widow Kamaiammal, who died on 16th September, 1969. The plaintiff claims to be an adopted daughter of the said Markandeyalu Chetti, whereas the defendant claims to be his adopted son. The defendant's adoption is said to have taken place two months prior to the death of Markandeyalu Chetti. Soon after the death of Markandeyalu Chetti, there were suit between the defendant and Kamaiammal which ended ultimately in a compromise by which the properties were divided among the two. The present suit properties fell to the share of Kamaiammal. After her death, the plaintiff claiming to have perfected her title by continuous pos...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Gurumurthy Vs. the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ335
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent in T.S.E. No. 116 of 1976. That was an appeal preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu shops and Establishments Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That appeal came to be preferred under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner was employed as a peon with the second respondent in its Coimbatore Branch. On 31-12-73 allegations of misconduct were thrown against him, and the body of the letter addressed to the petitioner in this behalf runs as follows:it has been reported to me that you did not remit the proceeds of cheques which were entrusted to you for collection by the Branch management on the dates on which they were encashed by you.2. Details of cheques which were collected by you and proceeds not remitted to the Branch on the same day is given below.___________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Sonmull and Sons Vs. M.D. Dhanalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ465
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a common judgment given in two appeals by the Court of Small Causes, Madras as an appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The landlords, Mrs. Dhanalakshmi and Kumaradoss are the widow and son respectively of one Devadoss, who was the son of one M.K. Sundaramier. The petitioned property which is a house bearing door No. 77, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras was the joint family property of Sundaramier and his son Devadoss. In a suit filed for partition and possession of the half portion as heirs of deceased Devadoss the landlords were held entitled to possession of the northern half of the house in dispute the southern half having gone to the share of Sundaramier. It appears that in execution proceedings, the tenant Sonmull and Sons who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2056 of 1983 and one Rasiklal A. Shah, obstructed the execu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »