Chennai Court August 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.
Rajagopalan and ors. Vs. Thirugnanasambandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ365
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Petitioners 1 and 3 along with the husband of the second petitioner claimed that they are tenants within the meaning of the Act to be recorded as such under the Act. They shall be hereinafter referred to as the claimants. Earlier the claimants had their names recorded as tenants under the Act. The lands in question belonged to respondents 1 and 2 and one Janaki Anni, who is no more and whose legal representatives are respondents 3 and 4. They shall be hereinafter referred to as the owners. The owners sought rectification of the entry in favour of the claimants on the ground they were not at all aware of the proceedings under the Act pursuant to which the entry was made in favour of the claimants and only when a suit was filed for an injunction against them in the civil Court, they became aware of the entry under the Act and...
K. Andavar and anr. Vs. Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC148
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The appellants are the parents of the deceased who had died at the very spot of the accident. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners/appellants by Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the various aspects that are exhibited in the evidence let in, but had given a compensation which is not quite adequate namely Rs. 15,400/-. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the ratio decidendi in the various decisions of this Court had not been followed by the Tribunal for arriving at the compensation.2. Mr. P. Pandi, learned Counsel for the respondent Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited, Maduai submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the aspects including the fact that had been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 1 that the family owns 18 acres of dry land and the yearly income after deducting all the expenditure is Rs. 200/- It is also pointed out by Mr. Pandian that ...
Rosammal and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Sethi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC272
Swamikkannu, J.1. Negligence is an aspect which has to be decided by the facts and circumstances that are available on record, both oral and documentary by the Tribunal. Whatever may be the case of the claimants or the respondents or the owners of the vehicle or the companies which own the vehicle that is alleged to have committed rashness and negligence resulting in the accident, it is for the Tribunal to decide as to who was responsible for the accident In other words, the element of rashness and negligence has to be gathered by scrutinising the evidence available on record and carefully analysing the same so as to come to a proper decision, and if so to what percentage the victim as well as the driver of the vehicle have contributed to the accident. Though it is a summary procedure contemplated bv the Rules so far as the Tribunal is concerned while dealing with the claim it is but necessary that the elementary principle of law, namely, the Indian Evidence Act has to be followed. Bea...
Nandagopal Gounder Vs. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad224; (1987)IIMLJ449
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed by the judgment debtor against the order passed in E. A. 913 of 1984 in O.S. 589 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram.2. The second respondent herein obtained two decrees-against the petitioner herein in O.S. 287 of 1979 and 589 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram. He assigned the said two decrees in favour of the first respondent herein for valuable consideration. On the basis of the assignment, the respondent filed E.A. 913 of 1984 in O.S. 589 of 1980 under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. praying for the recognition of the assignment of the decree O.S. 589 of 1980 in his favour and to permit the execution of the decree assigned. The petitioner herein, who is the judgment-debtor, resisted the application on the ground that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2750 on 5-11-1983 in full satisfaction of the said two decrees to the second respondent and obtained a receipt evidencing such payment. Therefore he contended that the ...
Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC35; 1987(32)ELT503(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner manufactures certain varieties of paper, hereinafter called 'core paper' and as well as wrapper paper. Both are excisable commodities under Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. In core paper at the time of clearance necessarily gets packed in the wrapper paper before it is cleared for the market. The petitioner during the period from 16-3-1976 to 31-8-1977, paid duty both on the core paper and on the wrapper paper, but valuing them and paying duty thereon separately. The value of the wrapper paper was not included in the value of the core paper at the time of the clearance of the core paper for market. On the ground that the value of the wrapper paper, when it was used to pack the core paper for the marketability of the latter though the wrapper paper had suffered duty separately ought to have been tacked on to the value of the core paper to arrive at the total value of the core paper for the purpose of levy of duty thereon as per Section 4(4)...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC230(Madras)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Friday the 24th, Monday the 27th day of July, 1987 and Monday the 3rd day of August, 1987 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 17.2.1981 and made herein the counter affidavits filed herewith and the records relating to the order in C. No. V/17/30/30/474/77 MP. 3 (B2) dated 24.12.1980 on the file of the third respondent herein and comprised in the return of the respondent herein to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.L. Somayaji of M/s. Aiyer and Dolia, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order:The petitioner manufactures certain varieties of paper, hereinafter called 'core paper' and as well as wrapper paper. Both are excisable commodities und...
Seetharama Reddiar Vs. Sri Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ497
ORDERK.R. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision are briefly as follows: The respondent herein viz. Aruhnighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, filed a suit against the revision petitioner or recovery of arrears of lease amount for Faslis 1387 to 1391. According to the plaint filed by the respondent, the leasehold property was survey No. 107/11 and 1.50 acres of wet land at Membagha-pattu. After examining two witnesses the respondent filed amendment application stating that the land cultivated by the revision petitioner was not 107/11 but only dry land Survey No. 130/11 and of 1.50 acres. The said amendment petition, though resisted by the petitioner herein, was allowed, ultimately, the learned trial Munsif dismissed the suit.2. Against the said dismissal of the suit the respondent herein filed appeal in A.S. No. 83 of 85 before the...
The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by (Board of Management) Spec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ210
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent is the Secretary of the appellant-Bank, having risen to the position from the ranks. He was punished for some misconduct by an award of suspension for a period of two years and by reduction of pay from Rs. 1,050 to Rs. 900. That period of suspension came to an end on 13.10.1978. On that day, the respondent went to the Office of the appellant Bank for reporting to duty. The Special Officer, who was in charge of the Bank, directed him to come on the next day. i.e., on 14.10.1978, though he received the joining report, which he returned to him. On 14.10.1978, the Special Officer, issued a memo, marked as Ex. A4 which reads as follows:It has been brought to the notice of the Special Officer, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank that a case in Kumbakonam North Police Station has been registered against Thiru K.S.Mani, M.L.C. and ex-Chairman, Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam and Thiru M.Parthasarathi, Secretary of the Kumbakonam Central Co...
The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ90
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent was compulsorily retired on the ground that it was necessary in public interest, by an order 31.8.1976 by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South. A cheque representing three months pay and allowances on the date of retirement was enclosed. But in quoting the provision of law, the Superintendent of Police mentioned that he was compulsorily retiring him under Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules. When the matter was taken in appeal by the respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai, who is the appellate authority, was of the view that Fundamental Rule 56(d) was not applicable, but the provision under which the retirement should have been made was under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960. Both these provisions are indentically worded except that the Liberalised Pension Rule, was specifically applicable to only those Government servants, who retired from service on or after 1st July, 1960, and who belong to a pe...
K.R. Loganathan and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Mad)162
S.A. Kader J.1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S. Nos. 839 of 1974, 836 of 1974 and 52 of 1975, respectively. The plaintiffs are the appellants. 2. The plaintiffs in these three suits, who are brothers have filed these three separate but identical suits against the defendants, who are the same in all three suits, for a declaration that the suit property, which is also the same in all the three suits, viz., an undivided one-third share in the premises bearing door No. 26/285, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore, is not liable for attachment or sale for recovery of arrears of income-tax of K. R. Radhakrishnan and for a consequential injunction. The averments in these plaints are as follows : The three plaintiffs in these three suits and K. R. Radhakrishnan are the sons of late K. Ramakrishna Pillai. The said Ramakrishna Pillai was carrying on business in jewellery at Coimbatore, in door No. 26/285 in the name and sty...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »