Chennai Court July 1987 Judgments
Thangiah Nadar Vs. Jeyaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ47
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The civil revision, is filed by the tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the premises are required by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the eviction petition.2. Facts briefly are: Proceedings relate to residential premises in Door No. 200/G, Tiruchendur Road, Palayancottai, Tirunelveli. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant in R.C.O.P.-No. 120 of 1984 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tirunelveli under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averment that the property belonged to his father and his brothers and he was administering the same and receiving rent and that the premises were required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, since the locality was gaining importance and d...
Tag this Judgment!United Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1987
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT193(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The appellants are manufacturers of footwear. They imported sometime in October 1970 the machinery described as 'Desma Fully Automatic High Pressure Footwear Injection Molding Machine' and cleared the same on payment of customs duty, Customs duty was assessed under Tariff Item 72(b). They then filed an application to refund contending that the machinery import is one that would fall under Tariff Item 72(15) and it has been wrongly assessed and duty has been collected under item 72(b). Item 72(b) reads as follows :- 'machinery, namely, such of the following articles are not otherwise specified - (a) ....................... (b) machines and sets of machines to be worked by electric, steam, water or other power, not being manual or animal labour, or which before being brought into use require to be fixed with reference to other moving parts; The standard rate of duty was 40 per cent. ad valorem under item 72(b); Item 72(15) reads as follows :- 'Boot and show manufac...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ344
Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O.S.No. 66 of 1977. The second defendant therein is the appellant.2. This is a representative action by the two plaintiffs on their behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram in Tirunelveli Taluk for a declaration that Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple of Naranammalpuram is a denominational institution belonging to the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram consisting of sixty families and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the management of the said temple and its properties by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the nominated representatives of the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram consisting of sixty families nominated to manage and administer the affairs of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple of the village. The said temple was founded by the ancestors of the Brahmin community of t...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ292
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. Pallavan transport Corporation Limited represented by its Managing Director is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed against an award dated 28.6.1978 in O.P. No. 33 of 1976 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal held on an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act that the petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 32,000 and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 32,400/- against the appellant herein and in favour of respondents 1 to 3 herein and also passed an award for a sum of Rs. 5,400/- against the appellant herein and in favour of the second respondent/fourth respondent herein. The award amounts would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of award. Respondents 1 to 3 would share the award amount equally. Respondent 2 and 3 herein being minors, their share amounts would be invested in Canara Bank, Perambur Barracks Road Branch until the time the minor...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran and anr. Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC468
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 before the Tribunal below, against the award dated 30-3-1981 in Claim Petition No. 42 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Tirunelveli, on a petition under Section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs, 45,000/- for the loss of life of one Kasi Mooppanar in a motor vehicle accident, finding that the accident took place only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car, TNI 2000, and that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 33,800/-. The award was passed in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 before the Tribunal, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, and the amount of compensation was made payable by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal who are appellant Nos. 2 and 1 respectively before me. The Tribunal also directed payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded at 6 per cent per annum from the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajeswari and anr. Vs. Hotel Imperial and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad34
Swamikkannu, J.1. The Tribunal has observed in the award under appeal that fromthe evidence of R.W. 1 it appeared that onlyon 1-8-1977 the police decided to proceedagainst the car MSM 3499, Therefore theTribunal found that the appellants hereinhave not established that it was car MSM3499 that was involved in the accident andanswered the said point against the appellantsherein and in favour of the respondents herein.Then the Tribunal proceeded to fix thequantum of compensation 'and arrived at thecompensation that is payable to the appellantsherein at Rs. 5,000/-. In view of the Tribunal'sfinding under the first issue, the Tribunaldismissed the petition filed by thepetitioners/appellants herein before it: P.W. lParthasarathy, P.W. 2 Chakrapani, P.W. 3Balakrishnan' and P.W. 4 Dharman wereexamined on the side of the appellants hereinbeforetheTribunalandEx. A-1 recordsheetof the deceased Bhaskaran dated 26-3-1978issued by the Elementary School, Pallavaram:Ex. A death register extract issued...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kuthalinga Mudaliar Vs. the District Supply Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1401
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as follows The appellant is a Rice Mill owner. On the ground that there were certain irregularities in the maintenance of accounts, action was taken against the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. On 16-2-1977, the Inspector of Police, Food Ceil, seized 11 bags of soaked paddy, 4 bags of raw paddy and 80 kgs. of boiled rice from the appellant's mill as unaccounted stock found on that date. One Sudalaiandi claiming to be the owner of all these seized stock filed a petition stating that on 16-2-1977, he entrusted 15 bags of raw paddy for hulling and left the stock at the Mill, that he went to the Mill on 18-2-1977, for collecting the rice and at that stage he came to know of the seizure of the above stock by the Inspector of Police, Food Cell and he prayed for the return of the seized stock. Both the miller and the claimant were served with notices and after hearing the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gopal Shenoy Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Reptd. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ448
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. No counter filed in the civil miscellaneous petition No. 7678 of 1987 though twice time had been granted for the filing of the counter. The Petition is therefore allowed. The document is marked as Ex. P1 and transmitted to the Tribunal for consideration while disposing of the M.P. No. 698 of 1980.2. The appeal is also taken up for disposal to-day. This is an appeal against the order dated 10.7.1980 in M.P.No. 698 in O.P.S.R. No. 7647 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Madras. The said application was filed to condone ttie delay of 407 days in filing the M.P. for compensation for injuries, sustained in the road accident. In the affidavit, the petitioner-appellant herein stated that he was in-patient in the hospital from the date of the accident namely from 16.9.1978 and that he was discharged only on 4.4.1980. It is stated that the delay of 407 days had occurred on account of the same. Now.Ex. Pl Hospital chit has been marked as per o...
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai Padayachi Vs. District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ140
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In order to appreciate the question of law that is raised in this writ appeal, we may notice a few relevant facts. The second respondent is the owner of two blocks of land; one measuring an extent of 1.32 acres and comprised in S. Nos. 57/182, 47/4, 56/1 and 55/2 in Siruvanur village, North Arcot Df. The other block is an extent of 2.02 acres and Comprised in S. Nos. 56/2, 56/3, 56/4, 56/6 and 250/2 in the same village. The appellant filed an application under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Records of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for inclusion of his tenancy over these two blocks of lands in the approved records of tenancy rights relating to Siruvanur village. It was on the ground that under Ex. B10, dated 14.10.1971, the first block of land was leased to the appellant for a cash rent of Rs. 3,000 for a period of five years, which worked out of Rs. 600 per year and the second block under Ex. P11 for a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vijaya Rajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissioner and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ249
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. These two writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner who was an employee of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Stores. The first writ petition is directed against an order of the 2nd respondent, namely, Registrar of Co-operative Societies dismissing the petitioner's revision application against the order of suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The second writ petition is directed against the final order of dismissal from service.2. The petitioner appeared in person and argued the matter. He fairly stated that in view of the final order of dismissal, the writ petition challenging the order of suspension has become infructuous without going into the merits. No costs.'3. Regarding writ petition No. 13070 of 1986, Mr. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the learned Counsel, the relief prayed for is only again...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »