Chennai Court January 1987 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.
Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Express Newspapers Private Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ191
ORDERM.N. Chandrukar, C.J.1. All these three revision petitions two of which are by the tenant and one by the landlord, raise a question with regard to the correctness of the fair rent fixed in respect of premises which are situated on the Mount Road, Madras, with a built up area of 18,047 sq. ft., 13,967 sq. ft., are covered by Go-down and 4,080 sq.ft. are covered by office premises.2. The original agreed rent was Rs. 3,000 per month. The landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent claiming Rs. 18,000 per month. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6,801 per month. Against this order both the landlord and the tenant went in appeal. The tenant's appeal came to be dismissed. The landlord appeal came to be allowed partly and the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 9,825 per month. Since the appellate order was passed in two appeals, one by the tenant and the other by the landlord, two revision petitions came to be filed by the tenant being C.R.P. Nos. 2491 and 2492 of 1983. ...
C. Ranganathan Vs. M. Suri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ235
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. Both these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order as both of them arise out of an eviction petition filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act).2. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 6 Sivaparakasa Mudaliar Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, the southern portion in the ground floor of which is occupied by the respondent as a tenant. Originally, the monthly rent for the premises was Rs. 100. As according to the landlord the rent paid by the tenant was low, he filed a petition under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act, being H.R.C. No. 1922 of of 1978. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs. 236. Both the landlord and the tenant filed appeals against this order of the then Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 267 by an order dated 20.4.1981. By the sa...
D. Anbalagan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ55Mad
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the original petitioner whose writ petition, which was substantially directed against the order dated 13th December, 1982 made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission holding that the selection of the petitioner is cancelled and his name is removed from the list of junior assistants and that he is debarred from writing any examination conducted by the Public Service Commission for a period of one year from 16th November, 1982, was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 2. The petitioner has come to Court in rather unusual circumstances. Between 23rd October, 1974 and 31st May, 1976, the petitioner had held temporary employment in Government service under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. For a brief period from 23rd October, 1974 to 19th February, 1975 he was junior assistant at the Taluk Office, Chengam. Then from 21st February, 1975 to 3rd April, 1975 and from 16th April, 1975 to 31s...
Management of Nathan's Press Vs. K. Krishnan and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ476Mad
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J .1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent in C.P. 515 of 1979. That was a claim petition preferred by the first respondent against the petitioner. In I.D. 314 of 1977 an award was passed holding that the non-employment of the first respondent by the petitioner was not justified and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the first respondent with full back wages and continuity of service etc.2. The petitioner reinstated the first respondent only on 2.5.1979, but did not pay back wages and other attendant benefits. It was only on this background the first respondent filed the claim petitions, claiming amounts under the following heads-1. Arrears of salary from February 1977 to April 1979 Rs. 10107.26. 2. Leave salary for national and festival holidays Rs. 843.86. 3. Bonus for the year 1975-76 Rs. 260. 4. Bonus for the year 1977-78 Rs. 374.85. 5. Interest at the rate of 6 percent Rs. 350. The second respondent countenanced all ...
ismail Bibi and ors. Vs. Five Gori Thaikka Wakf at Vridhachalam by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ440
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. This petition is preferred by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The legal representatives of Syed Ibrahim Rowther are the petitioners herein. The said Rowther preferred an appeal to Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal at Cuddalore in L.A.T. No. 83 of 1979 against, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, dated 14.2.1970. During the pendency of the appeal, he died on 8.1.1981. Hence, his legal representatives have preferred an application to implead them as appellants in the said appeal and also filed an application to set aside the abatement of the appeal, and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to implead the L.Rs. of Rowther, as they came to know about the pendency of the appeal only on 4.1.1983.2. These applications were opposed by respondents by stating that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the Tribunal and that the claims made in the affidavit on ot...
Sri-la-sri Arunagirinathar Sri Gnanananda Desika Paramachariya Swamiga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad3
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition is admitted. The writ petition is taken up today for final disposal as requested by Mr. M. Ganapathi and as agreed to by the learned Advocate General.2. This writ petition for mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the petitioner from going on the foreign tour to Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand and People's Republic of China with their personal staff. The facts which need not be dealt with in detail are as follows-3. The petitioner is the 292nd Spritual Head of the Madurai Adheenam. He is taking an active interest in the Tamil language and culture and supporting the causes on the language issue in Tamil Nadu. He had traveled abroad to several countries including U.S.A. for propagating Hindu religion. He has been invited by foreign associations in Singapore, Malaysia, Hongkong, Thailand . and People's Republic of China for participating in various seminars, worships and functions and to address on the Hindu Religion and its cult...
Vasudeva Pillai Trust Vs. Thirugnanasambandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ259
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Plaintiff in ejectment suit No. 40 of 1974 on the file of the II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras is the petitioner herein and the defendant is the respondent. Plaintiff filed the suit as owner of I ground and 28 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 1523/4, at Rathnasabapathi Pillai St., Madras 7, and that a superstructure now exists thereon bearing door No. 10 Rathnasabapathi Pillai Street. Plaintiff leased out the plot of land originally to one Rajamanickammal on a monthly rent of Rs. 3.25 and she left behind huge arrears and expired 27 years ago intestate, and that in September 1970, on plaintiff being told that defendant is claiming to be the lessee of the property and collecting ground rent from sub-tenants, a notice was sent on 15.9.1970 calling upon him to prove that he is the successor-in-interest of Rajamanickammal, He replied through his Counsel on 26.9.1970, stating that he is her son and may be treated as a lessee under the plaintiff and undertook to pay the arrea...
Veera Manikandan Vs. A.K. Chakrapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ70
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The above civil revision petition is by the tenant under an order of eviction passed by both the Courts below under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Proceedings relate to a shop bearing door No. 6, in door No. 157, Strahans Road, Perambur Barracks, Madras 12. The respondent as landlord filed an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. H.R.C. No. 193 of 1983 before the Rent Controller (XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras) seeking eviction of the tenant on the averment that he had purchased the petition premises as also the other portions of door No. 157, Strahans Road, under a sale deed for the purpose of accommodating his present business which he was carrying on in rented premises in the same road. The above action of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner on the averment that he did not admit the above need of the...
Cooppousamy Vs. Alamelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ432
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 135 of 1979 on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry is the petitioner herein. An Ex Parte decree was passed on 27.1.1981 and defendants filed I.A. No. 824 of 1981 to condone the delay of 46 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the petition to set aside the Ex Parte decree; and I.A. No. 825 of 1981 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.1.1981.2. The trial Court set aside the Ex Parte decree and thereupon, plaintiff preferred C.R.P. No. 4555 of 1981, and it was contended that as defendants had withdrawn I.A. No. 824 of 1981; I.A. No. 825 of 1981 should have been automatically dismissed; whereas it was contended by defendants that I.A. No. 824 of 1981 was withdrawn on a suggestion made by the Court that such an application was not necessary in accord with the law of limitation applicable to Union Territory of Pondicherry.3. The learned Judge by remitting the matter to the trial Court, had restored to i...
Brakes India Ltd., Madras Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC144; 1988(15)LC307(Madras); 1988(33)ELT654(Mad); (1988)IMLJ107
M.N. Chandurkar, CJ 1. The only question which arises in this appeal, is whether the six wholesale dealers, with whom the appellant company deals on the basis of wholesale transactions of sale of its products, can be said to be related persons within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the decision of the above question are :- The appellant is a public limited company manufacturing brake assemblies by obtaining brake linings from the manufacturers of brake linings without payment of duty under bond against L6 licence under Chapter X procedure. Basically, there are two kinds of transaction, one set of transaction is in the nature of sales of brake assemblies made directly by the appellant company to State Transport undertakings on what is known as rate contract. There is no dispute that there is a direct privity of contract between the Transport undertakings and the appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »