Chennai Court December 1987 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Paola Mortuzzi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1987
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC87; 1989(40)ELT306(Mad)
ORDERThis petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and/or Mr. R. Srinivasan for M/s. Murthy and Vasan, Advocates for the respondent, the court made the following order. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, who is investigating into O.S. No. 388/87 R.D. registered against the respondent who was found in possession of 20 gold bars valued at Rs. 7,38,610, while arriving at the Madras Airport on 29.9.1987, kept concealed in a medical band tied around his waist and for which he had no valid permit, has filed this application under Section 439(2) and 482 Cr. P.C. to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 695 of 1987, granting bail to the respondent. 2. Facts briefly are : On 29.9.1987, the respondent lighted at the International Airport at Madras from S...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudiyalur Co.-op. Agricultural Service Limited Vs. Sethuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ915Mad
S. Mohan, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (learned District Judge, Coimbatore) rendered in C.M.A. No. 125 of 1982.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are: The respondent herein is the laboratory chemist under the petitioner. On 26 October 1977 there was a shortage of Endosulfan due to outflow of the material. After enquiry the petitioner herein suggested the value of the shortage of Endosulfan to be recovered from the contractor Maruthan and from the respondent herein. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,904.40 was deducted from the salary of the respondent. Thereupon, the respondent took up the matter before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that the recovery was in order. On appeal before the appellate authority (District Judge, Coimbatore), the appellate authority came to the conclusion that in exhibit R3 the secretary of the petitioner himself a...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ302
V. Ratnam, J.1. The defendants in. O.S. No. 267 of 1977, District Munsif's Court, Thirumangalam, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The respondent herein instituted that suit praying for a mandatory injunction against the appellants for the removal of electric wires drawn across and over the lands of the respondent in Survey Nos. 32/1 and 38/1 in Solaikuruchi village and for compensation for wrongful trespass and for causing damage. The facts giving rise to the Second Appeal may now be briefly set out. The respondent owns an extent of 1.63 acres in survey Nos. 38/1 and 32/1 in a single plot. About a furlong west of the lands of the respondent one Parisutharajan owns 1.38 acres in survey No. 106/4 and he, after putting up a house in survey No. 106/4, applied for electric service connection. According to the case of the respondent, though electric posts and transformer and service connections for a petrol bunk and coir factory, west of Parisutharajan's house, at a distance of abou...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaramu Ammal Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR322(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Mr. R. Lokapriya, Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent. 2. The prayer in the writ petition runs as follows : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to issue a certified copy of the revised assessment order for 1985-86 and pass such other further order or orders as this hon'ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and render justice.' 3. The respondent seems to have stipulated for the payment of taxes due for the grant of certified copy asked for by the petitioner. This is not proper. The respondent is directed to grant the certified copy to the petitioner as asked for by him within a week 's time for today. This writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Baiambal Vs. Devasenathipathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ177
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.A. No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the appellate authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this revision petition and the respondent is the landlord.2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2353 of 1984 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, for eviction of the petitioner - tenant under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of nuisance. According to him, the petition building was let out to the tenant for running wet grinding machines, that his wife is a heart patient and, therefore, even while letting out the premises to the tenant, it was agreed that the tenant should not erect machineries which would create noise affecting the health of his wife. It was further contended that the tenant, in disregard of his undertaking had install...
Tag this Judgment!Janakidoss Dwarakani and anr. Vs. B. Satyavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ266
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 456 of 1982 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (13th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras and in the appeal in R.C.A.No. 892 of 1984 on the file of the appellate authority (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 4205 of 1985 and similarly the unsuccessful tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 521 of 1982 and in the appeal in R.C.A.No. 911 of 1984 is the petitioner in both these cases.2. The respondent/landlady filed two petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.456 of 1982 and 521 of 1982 Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the two tenants, who are the petitioners in these two revision petitions, in respect of their respective sheds in old Door Nos.31/5 and 31/5L and new Door No. 6 Sattanna Naicken Street, Choolai, Madras-12 on the ground of owner's occupation for non-residential purposes on the following grounds; The revision, petitioners a...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughasundaram Vs. A.S. Narayanaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad330; (1988)IMLJ56
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Sharunughasundaram, the first defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 1982 in O.S. No. 548 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, decreeing the suit for specific performance, holding that the plaintiffs have to deposit before 28-71982 into the Court below a sum' of Rs. 60,045/-, the balance of sale price, that as and when such deposit is made by the plaintiffs, the property mentioned in Ex. A. 1 agreement of sale has to be sold in favour of the plaintiffs by the first defendant and that the said sale deed has to be executed before 28-8-1982 failing which the Court below would execute the, sale deed on behalf of the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The other relief prayed for by the plaintiffs was dismissed without costs. The Court below directed the first ' defendant to pay plaintiffs the costs of the suit and directed defendants1 to 5 to bear their own costs.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Nathan Vs. Devanai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ259
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit has preferred these two revisions against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.307 of 1987 and 357 of 1987 in O.S. No. 100 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two revision petitions are as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 to 3 for the relief of specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement of sale with the first defendant. The suit was posted for the first hearing on 29-8-1986. The second defendant filed a written statement. The third difendant who was impleaded subsequently adopted the written statement. Since the first defendant did not appear, she was set ex parte on the first hearing date, namely, 29-8-1986. The first defendant filed the petition, I.A. No. 307 of 1987 to set aside the ex parte order passed against her and permit her to conduct the suit. It is alleged in the affidavit that the suit was filed against her, her daugh...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Binny Ltd. (B and C Mills) Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ180Mad
Srinivasan, J.1. All the above writ appeals arise out of writ petitioner challenging orders of the State Government refusing to pass orders of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' for adjudication. All cases except W.A. 292 of 1987 and 1781 of 1987 fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the Act arising out of disputes raised by individuals. The common question which requires to be answered is, 'what are the grounds on which the appropriate Government can refuse to refer a dispute for adjudication ?'. Though the matter is not res integre, we are obliged to consider it at some length on account of the contentions raised before us, in particular, that the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered recently run counter to its earlier pronouncements. 2. Excepting in W.A. Nos. 255, 292 and 1781 of 1987, in all other matters the Government refused to make reference on the ground that there was fair and proper enquiry by the concerned m...
Tag this Judgment!Semmoonchi Gounder Vs. Naina Gounder (Decd) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad345; (1988)IMLJ320
1. The defendant in 0. S. 980 of 1974 District Munsif's Court, Salem is the appellant in this second appeal which has 13een entertained on the following substantial question of law : -Whether the suit is barred by limitation?The facts giving rise to this second appeal may be briefly set out as under - The- suit property is an extent of 1 acre and 16 cents in R. S. 119/6 in Amani Selavadai village in Salem Dt. This property is stated to have belonged to deceased Naina Gounder (first plaintiff in the, suit) as his ancestral property and the first respondent herein (the second plaintiff in the suit) is the wife of deceased Naina Gounder. (here in after referred to as Naina Gounder for short) Respondents 2 to 7 in this second appeal are the legal representatives of Naina Gounder. Naina Gounder along with his two brothers and maternal uncle Vetraiya Gounder executed a nominal sale deed on 5-8-1935 in favour of one Chinnappa Gounder for the purpose of securing loan and that sale was subject ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »