Chennai Court December 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.
Syed Shafee and anr. Vs. S. Asmath Basha anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ193
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1983 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes),Madras, and in the appeals in R.C.A. No. 141 and 172 of 1985 on the file of the appellate authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, are the petitioners in these revision petitions. The respondents are the landlords.2. The respondents, landlords, filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1983, for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of sub-letting and owner's occupation. They contended that both of them purchased the building on 25-4-1981 under two separate sale deeds and the first petitioner was a tenant at that time. He had attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondents and subsequently the first petitioner has sublet the premises to one Mrs. Khursheed Begum, who was added as the 3rd respondent, in the eviction petition, without the written permission of the respondents herein. It is their further case that the re...
R.J. Padmakumari and ors. Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation (Metro) R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ116
Sathiadev, J.1. Pallavan Transport Corporation is the Appellant in C.M.A. N0. 139 of 1982. Respondents who are the Appellants in C.M.A. No. 135 of 1982 and who are the wife and children of Bhargavan Nair, have claimed a total compensation of Rs. 2,80,000 on the ground that he died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.5.1979 at about 7.28 a.m. at King Circle on the Heavy Vehicles Factory Road at Avadi on account of the negligent driving of the bus TMN. 1291 belonging to the Appellant-Respondent before the Tribunal. Ranking of parties will be referred to as before the Tribunal.2. Bhargavan Nair was proceeding to his work spot in a scooter, and when he was nearing the eastern side of King Circle, the respondent's bus without en-circling the said circle came on its wrong side and dashed against the scooter, and hence, respondent is liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased.3. Respondent claimed that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and he wa...
M. Mohamed Kassim and ors. Vs. C. Rajaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ447
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful third defendant in O.S. No. 97 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, is the appellant in A.S. No. 756 of 1979. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 who are the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant in the said suit, are the appelants in A.S. No. 1177 of 1979 and the first defendant in the said suit is the appellant in A.S. No. 82 of 1982.2. The first respondent in all these appeals is the plaintiff in the said suit and he filed the same in a representative capacity for himself and on behalf of all the creditors of the first defendant for a consideration that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant are void and not binding on the general body of the creditors of the first defendant and also for a decree against him for realisation of Rs. 49,909,25 with interest and for costs of suit. The plaintiff has also prayed for an injunction against the purchasers of the suit properties from the first defendant from effecting any alte...
Perumaiya and ors. Vs. T. Muniyappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ318
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. 19 of 1986 in the un-numbered appeal on the file of the District Judge, Dharmapuri.2. The respondents herein filed an appeal before the District Court, Dharmapuri, against the judgment and decree in O.S. 188 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. As there was delay in filing the said appeal, they filed a petition in I.A. 18 of 1986 to excuse the delay in filing the said appeal. Pending disposal of the said appeal they also filed another application in I.A. 19 of 1986, for staying of the operation of the decree passed by the trial Court. It was resisted by the petitioners herein on various grounds, excepting the ground on which the present revision is now filed. The learned Judge granted stay as prayed for. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.3. Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied upon the provisions...
Rajagopal Chettiar Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1291
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by one Rajgopal Chettiar, the father of the detenu, Radhakrishnan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing the order of detention dated 26-3-1987 passed against the detenu Radhakrishnan, and for setting him at liberty.2. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the first respondent Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred, on it by and under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods.3. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the grounds of detention furnished to the detnu and it is needless to recapitulate the same in this order.4. Though several grounds of attack have been enumerated in the affidavit in support of this writ petition; the learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only to the following aspects of the matter...
Venugopal Reddiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Gopalsami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ440
V. Ratnam, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in O.S. No. 159 of 1976, District Munsif's Court, Ranipet, are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the deceased plaintiff praying for a declaration of his title over the suit properties and for recovery of possession. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff was as follows:The father of the deceased plaintiff, one Madhava Reddi and Chinaina Reddi were brothers. Chinaina Reddy died some time in 1922 leaving behind him, his wife Kanakarathinammal Kanakarathinammal had a brother by name Devarajulu and his son is the 1st respondent in this second appeal. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st respondent. The suit properties belonged to Chinaina Reddi and on his death, his wife enjoyed the same and while doing so, she stayed with the respondents. As Kanakarathinammal was an illiterate lady, the 1st respondent managed the said properties. Kanakarathinammal died on 27.3.1976 and on her death,...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Represented by Its Secretary K.N. Gopalan Vs. the P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ109
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The above writ petitions which have been referred to the Division Bench, were directed against an interim award made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in a dispute which has been referred to the Labour Court. The disputes are: (1) whether non-employment of the concerned workman is justified, if not to what relief he (sic) is entitled and (2) to compute the relief if any awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed. We are not concerned with the merits of the dismissal at this stage. But it would suffice to state that so far as the three employees in these petitions are concerned, the management has not issued any show cause notice, but straightaway dismissed then by an order dated 18th August, 1981 alleging certain misconduct. Before the Labour Court it was contended on behalf of the workmen that until the charges against them are proved by evidence let in before the Labour Court, the dismissal order must be treated as illegal and invali...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Alagirisubramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad248
1. The defendant in 0. S. 434 of 1977, District Munsif's Court, Madurai town, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein praying for the relief of rendition of accounts by the appellant The circumstances giving rise to the second appeal are as follows. 2. The appellant appointed the respondent as an agent for procurement of paddy and rice and also as a hulling agent and the respondent had to purchase paddy from the producers with his own money and after converting the paddy into rice, supply the some to the appellant or as directed by it. The work of hulling agency consisted of hulling for the appellant paddy and supply rice as. directed by it. Agreements in the prescribed forms were executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant and security deposit was, also furnished. According to the respondent, in the Kuruvai season in 1966, he purchased paddy and converted it into rice and supplied to the Government, besides converting paddy supplie...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ177Mad
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...
Mohamed Hanifa Vs. Abdul Latheef Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ76
Sengottuvelan, J.1. On a reference by Swamikkannu, JL, this second appeal is posted before us for an authoritative pronouncement regarding the interpretation of Section 4 of the Partition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. As formulated by the learned Judge, the questions for determination in this second appeal are:1. Whether an application Under Section 4 of the Partition Act (Act 4 of 1893) can be filed at the time of pendency of a second appeal which itself is against a final decree,2. When the respondents in the second appeal raise an objection under Clause 5 of Section 100, C.P.C., can the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act be entertained without deciding the objections of the respondents?3. If the said application is maintainable during the pendency of the second appeal against the final decree, whether the said application has to be disposed of first, before actually determining the second appeal itself?2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »