Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ432
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The tenant has preferred this revision challenging the concurrent findings of both the forums below, fixing fair rent for the petition mentioned building at Rs. 725 per month.2. The facts which give rise to this revision can be set out briefly as follows:The respondents herein, who are the landlords, leased out the petition mentioned premises situate at Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 for non-residential purpose. They filed the petition for fixation of fair rent on the ground that the building consists of three floors, namely, ground floor, first floor and second floor and it is in an important locality and that considering the prevailing rate of rents in the neighbourhood as well as the market value of sites, the contractual rate of rent is very low. According to the respondents, the value of the site per ground is Rs. 96,000. The age of the building is 50 years and it is type II building. The building was built up with brick a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1988Mad256
Swasubramaniam, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. 3807 of 1977 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in this regular appeal. The respondent herein was' the plaintiff in the said suit which was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,882.86.2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows - One B.K. Shetty purchased a draft for Rs. 20 bearing Rs. 71.58149 dt. 27-3-1974 from the Ambar Branch of the Indian, Bank, the plaintiff. One B. Ramaswami had, purchased another draft for Rs. 30 bearing ,Rs. 727112 dt. 2-11-1974 . from the Vaniyambadi branch of the Indian Bank. One. S. Ramanathan who has got an account with' the south Thambalarn branch of the defendant bank namely Vysya Bank Ltd., appears to have got into possession of these two drafts; and those two drafts were materially altered. The name of the payee the amount the name of the branch on which the drafts were issued, were all altered. Though the drafts were purchased for pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1987)2MLJ390
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 3807 of 1977 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in this regular appeal. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the said suit which was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs,47,882.96.2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows; - One B.K. Shetty purchased a draft for Rs. 20/- bearing Rs. 581439 dated 27.3.1974 from the Arnbur Branch of the Indian Bank, the plaintiff. One B. Ramaswami had purchased another draft for Rs. 30/- bearing Rs. 726112 dated 2.4.1974 from the Vaniyambadi Branch of the Indian Bank. One S. Ramanathan who has got an account with the South Tambaram Branch of the defendant Bank, namely, Vysya Bank Ltd., appears to have got into possession of these two drafts and these two drafts were materially altered. The name of the payee, the amount, the name of the branch on which the drafts were issued were all altered. Though the drafts were purchased for p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ295
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Election Court (District Munsif), Kovilpetti in Election O.P.No. 7 of 1986 dated, 2-2-1987.2. The facts relating to this writ petition may now be noted. The petitioner and the 1st respondent contested for the office of Panchayat Board President for Vadakku Illanthaikulam Panchayat. The election was held on 23-2-1986. The petitioner was allotted 'pumpkin' symbol and the 1st respondent was given 'Road roller' as his symbol. On 25-2-1986, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner elected on his securing 559 votes as against the 556 votes secured by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said declaration, the 1st respondent filed O.P.16 of 1986, on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli on 4-3-1986 praying for a declaration that the election of the petitioner herein as Panchayat Board President was void and after setting aside the same to declare him as duly elected President. The learned District Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ66
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 3.6.1983, in and by which the Commissioner of Land Reforms found that the declaration under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', made by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms in his proceedings dated 22.10.1982 is correct and does not call for any interference. There is no dispute that the first order by the competent Authority viz., Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, was passed under Section 9(5) of the Act. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act. When an objection was raised by the office as to how the civil revision petition is maintainable, learned counsel made an endorsement to the effect that under Section 15 of the Act, a civil revision petition alone would be competent. That was how the civil revision petition had been entertain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ255
ORDERRatnam, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 197 of 1967, District Munsifs Court, Devakottai, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The 1st respondent herein and his mother, one deceased Mahamayee Ammal, instituted that suit praying for a decree for partition and separate possession of their one-third share in the A and B schedule properties to the suit. On the death of Mahamayee Ammal, respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are the sisters of the 1st respondent and daughters of deceased Mahamayee Ammal, were impleaded as defendants 21 and 22 in the suit. Consequent upon the death of the mother of the respondents herein, the 1st respondent prayed for a decree for partition of one-third share on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 herein. Though the suit was resisted by the petitioners and others on several grounds, on 24.2.1977 when the suit was posted in the special list, the petitioners were absent and were set ex parte and on the same day, a preliminary decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ272
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two revisions arise out of the common judgment passed by the learned Land Tribunal (Subordinate) Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The two revision petitioners, namely, Muthuswamy Thevar and Muthirulappan belong to K.Chettikulam village. The holdings of these two revision petitioners were determined by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) as 97.07 ordinary acres (Corresponding to 27.85 standard acres) in the case of Muthuswamy Thevar whereas 98.16 ordinary acres (Corresponding to 27.85 standard acres in the case of Muthirulappan. It may be mentioned here that the said Muthusami Thevar died and his legal representatives are added in the revision petition. The surplus land declared in the case of these two petitioners is 11.75 standard acres and 12.85 standard acres respectively as per draft statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, (Act 58 of 1961). Both of them filed objections in time and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1988]68STC84(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. These petitions are to condone the delay of 211 days in filing the tax case revisions. The revision petitions are sought to be filed as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore, dated 29th March, 1986. The revision petitions were filed under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that within ninety days from the date on which a copy of the order under sub-section (3) or sub-section (6) of section 36 is served in the manner prescribed, any person who objects to such order or the Deputy Commissioner may prefer a petition to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The proviso to this section as it was originally enacted in 1959, read as follows : 'Provided that the High Court may admit a petition preferred after the period of ninety days aforesaid if it is satisfied that the petitioner had suff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ179
ORDERP.K. Sethuraman, J.1. Respondent is the appellant. The appeal is against the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Judge (First Additional Judge, City Civil Court), Madras, in E.I.O.P. No. 13 of 1979 filed by the respondent herein under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act.2. The respondent herein filed the petition alleging that it is a partnership firm having 8 partners and carrying on business as sole selling agents of dairy products and they have an establishment in Kerala and Karnataka State besides at Madras city. The establishments at Madras, Kerala and Karnataka are different entities and the administration and management of each establishment are different and independent. There are 8 employees in the establishment at Madras, 7 at Karnataka and 23 at Kerala. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation viz., the appellant herein, sent a letter to the respondent herein to the effect that the respondent establishment is covered by the Employees' State Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1(1989)ACC71
P.K. Sethuraman, J.1. The petitioner is the appellant. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, constituting the Employees State Insurance Court, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant Under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The appellant herein filed the petition Under Section 75 of the Act for the relief of declaration that the order of the first respondent/Employees' State Insurance Corporation by its Regional Director, Madras, dated 30-10-1985 is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and for declaring that the third respondent R. Shanmugam is an employee entitled to permanent disablement benefit from the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and for a direction to the first respondent to provide such permanent disablement benefit to Shanmugham and for costs. According to the appellant/petitioner the Tiruppur Textiles (P) Ltd., Tiruppur, employs about 1000 workmen and all th...
Tag this Judgment!