Skip to content

Chennai Court June 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.

Jun 19 1987

S.T. Diraviam Vs. V.P. Chelliah and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-19-1987

Reported in: (1988)1MLJ289

ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 28.11.1986 in Election O.P. 2 of 1986, holding that the election of the petitioner as a member of the Aalankulam Panchayat Union is opposed to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore his election is invalid.2. The facts giving rise to this civil revision petition may be briefly set out. The election to the Aaiankulam Panchayat Union took place on 23.2.1986. The petitioner and the first respondent herein contested that election from the 8th ward of Aaiankulam Panchayat Union. The petitioner was declared elected on 25.2.1986. In election O.P. No. 2 of 1986, the first respondent challenged the election of the petitioner as being opposed to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, and the rules framed thereunder, on the ground that the petitioner was a lessee in respect of...


Jun 17 1987

Ponnuswamy Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-17-1987

Reported in: (1989)2MLJ506

Siva Subramaniam, J. 1. The plaintiff, who was partly successful in O.S. No. 76 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udamalpet, is the appellant in this appeal. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, is the only son of his father Kuppuswamy Goun-der and his mother the first respondent herein. Defendants 2 to 5, who are respondents 2 to 5 herein, ard his sisters. The appellant and his father Kuppuswamy Gounder were members of a joint family for which his father was the joint family manager. His father died on 6-7-1977 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents as his legal representatives. There was no partition during his lifetime. The properties described in the second schedule of the plaint belonged to the joint family consisting of the appellant and his fathes Kuppusamy Gounder. Respondents 2 to 5 got married and they have settled in different places. After the...


Jun 16 1987

S.M.A. Siddique Vs. Government of India

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-16-1987

Reported in: 1989(42)ELT541(Mad)

ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the Order of the High Court, dated 23-1-1981 and made herein the records relating to Order No. 203/80 dated 17-9-1980 on the file of the 1st respondent comprise in the return of the respondents to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ramaswami for M/s. N. Ganapathy, M. I. Meerasahib and A. Thirumoorthy, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Respondents the Court made the following Order :- The petitioner was visited with an Order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under the concerned rules of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. This Order was passed by the third respondent on 1-8-1969. The petitioner preferred an appeal as against that Order to the Second respondent on 17-9-1969. While the said appeal was pending, th...


Jun 16 1987

J.B. Trading Corporation Imports and Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-16-1987

Reported in: 1990(31)LC246(Madras)

ORDERMohan, J.1. These petitions coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court and made herein and reply affidavit withdrawn, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr, Habibullah Basha for M/s. D.A. Stewart and M.A. Kalam, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. P. Narasimhan Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and of Mr. B. Sriramulu; Special Prosecutor for (SPE) Cases for the 4th respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order:All these three writ petitions can be dealt with under a common order, since the writ petitioner in all the writ petitions is the same. The relief asked for in all the writ petitions is identical except that each of the petitions relates to different consignments.2. The short facts are as follows:One Messrs. Continental Silk House, 47, 3rd Main Road, 4th Block. Rajaji Road, Bangalore, fi...


Jun 15 1987

Stella Jayaraj Vs. the Private Collage, Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-15-1987

Reported in: (1987)2MLJ194

ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner was in the employ as a Professor of Education of Annammal Training College for Women, Tuticorin, hereinafter referred to as 'the College' of which the third respondent was the Secretary and Correspondent. The allegation put against the petitioner was that at the staff meeting held on 5.2.1977, she orally resigned her job making it effective from 31.3.1977. On 5.3.1977, the third respondent wrote to the petitioner as follows:In the staff meeting held on 5.2.1977 Saturday, at 12.30 P.M. you resigned your job and went out and once again came in and qualified it that the resignation will be effective from 31.3.1977. After due consideration, I have decided to accept your resignation. I waited all these days for your written resignation but I did not receive it. So please send your resignation in writing forthwith.On 7.3.1977, the petitioner wrote back to the third respondent in the following terms:I am in receipt of your letter dated 5.3.1977. Ki...


Jun 15 1987

The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Vs. M. Ramaswami

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-15-1987

Reported in: (1989)1MLJ348a

V. Ramaswami, J.1. In this case, the petitioner was originally given exemption of an extent of 9.46 acres under Section 73(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 58 of 1961, on the ground that it was a coconut thope. Subsequently, it appears that he sold land to a third party and that third party converted the thope into an agricultural land, and the ceiling area of the original owner, namely, the petitioner herein was sought to be revised by including this land. We are of the view that it is not open to the Authorised Officer to include the same in the holding of the petitioner after he had sold the property, while it was a thope. If it was a thope it was exempt from the Act, and there was no prohibition of a sale or purchase of such thope and, if the sale is valid, any conversion of the thope by the purchaser into an agricultural land will not affect the holding of the original owner. The order of the Tribunal is therefore correct. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Th...


Jun 15 1987

Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Vs. Giriraj Gopanna Manradiar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-15-1987

Reported in: (1989)1MLJ370

ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This matter has been referred to us by a learned single Judge, on the ground that it involves an interpretation of the provisions of Section 73(vii) and Section 73(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1964, and two decisions in P J. Vetrivel Gopanna Manra-diar v. A.O. (Land Reforms), Coimbatore C.R.P. No. 2020 of 1980 dated 24-12-1981. and V.S. Parthasarathi Mudaliar v. A.O. (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram C.R.P. No. 522 of 1981 dated 25-3-1982. which are conflicting decisions of two learned single Judges.2. The respondent held an extent of 133.36 ordinary acres, which is equivalent to 54-13 standard acres as on 15-2-1970 which is the relevant date. On the basis that the land held by him is in excess of the ceiling limit of 15 standard acres, a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was prepared proposing an extent of 39.13 standard acres as surplus and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 7-11...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial