Chennai Court January 1988 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.
S. Raman Vs. T. Pakirisamy Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ448
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision petition by the tenant. The landlord purchased a tiled house, which was occupied by three tenants, two occupying the two moieties of the house and the third one revision petitioner herein occupying a portion of the pial wherein he has installed a petty grocery shop, about 15 years prior to the institution of the proceedings in the year 1983. Soon after the purchase by the present landlord, he instituted eviction proceedings against all the tenants. The other two tenants have vacated the house. The present tenant revision petitioner herein contended that the petition for eviction was not maintainable, since the petition was for owner's occupation for residential purposes whereas the building was a non-residential one both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority stated that for ascertaining the character of a building whether it is a residential or a non-residential one, one has to take into account the totality of the structure and ...
P.A. Jacob and ors. Vs. Nanda Timber Trading Company Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ361
Swaikannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed by defendents 1 to 9 in O.S.No. 133 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, against the judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 1978, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 53,548-22 P. with proportionate costs, finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the said sum from the defendants towards damages.2. The suit itself was one for damages, and the case of the plaintiffs-respondents herein was shortly as follows: The plaintiffs are carrying on business in timber with their head-office at Pollachi and a branch office at Shencottai. The defendants are carrying on business in Shencottai under the name and style of Poabson and Co. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the State Government of Kerala on 19-8-1972 and acquired the right of cutting and removing the entire tree-growth in Achankoil forest in kerala State, for which they had paid a sum of Rs. 7,400 by way of security de...
Sengunthar Higher Secondary School Committee, Thuraiyur Vs. the Princi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ252Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner is the committee of management of Sengunthar Higher Secondary School at Thuraiyar. It files the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 5th November 1986 and to direct the third respondent to approve the order of dismissal of the 4th respondent dated 21st August 1982. The forth respondent was working as Grade-I Tamil Pandit in the petitioner school. It was found that he had started a parallel association and therefore he was asked to explain for this conduct on 22nd March 1982. He sent a reply on 29th March 1982. Charges were framed on 12th April 1982. In the meanwhile, as he had abused and beat the Headmaster, a notice was issued to him on 7th June 1982 and additional charges were framed against him on 8th June 1982 itself. He sent his reply on 10th June 1982 to the notice dated 7th July 1982. He was asked to appear for an enquiry on 12th July 1982. On 7th July 1982 he stated that as proper procedure was not being followed, he was not part...
Govindaswami Padayachi Vs. Arumugha Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ361
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings for setting aside the sale of agricultural lands taken under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. on the ground that the decretal debt having been scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of Act IV of 1938, as modified by Act VIII of 1973, the sale is vitiated by irregularity.2. The petitioner is a judgment debtor against whom a decree has been passed in O.S. No. 903 of 1970 on 18.12.1971, for a sum of Rs. 4,722.50. An execution petition filed originally on 4.2.1972, on the basis of which some items of agricultural property were attached was dismissed on 23.1.1973, but the attachment was ordered to be continued. The decree holder then filed fresh execution proceedings being E.P. No. 403 of 1973 on 13.2.1973. In execution proceedings, the attached properties were sold by auction for Rs. 2,436. Lots 7 to 12 were purchased by the decree holder himself on 24.11.1973. Before the sale was held on 26.11.1973,...
Management of Binny Ltd. (B and C Mills), Madras-12 Vs. K. Elumalai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ398Mad
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent in T.A.E. Case No. 84 of 1982 dated 20th July 1983. Petitioner states as follows : First respondent was employed as Fireman in the petitioner's mill at Perambur which is covered by the provisions of the Factories Act and had been registered as a factory under the said Act. Being a Fireman, his work was part of the work in the factory and, therefore, on first respondent moving the second respondent under Section 41 of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, Questioning the validity of the termination order passed by the petitioner on 12th October 1982, the petitioner filed a preliminary counter statement without going into the merits and claimed that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by first respondent in view of G.O.Ms. No. 545, Development, dated 10th February 1950. The second respondent, in spite of the preliminary objection raised, having held that he has the necess...
The Assistant Commissioner of U.L.T. Vs. A. Chelladurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ224
ORDERChandurkar, C.J.1. In S.No. 328/2 in Velacherri village, the respondent has premises which is non-residential in character inasmuch as it is used for storing and packing of crackers. The total extent of 1.11 acres was assessed to Urban Land Tax. He filed an appeal against this order and the contention raised before the Tribunal was that S.No. 328/2 undoubtedly consisted of a building which was used for packing crackers but since the surrounding land which was required to be left vacant under the terms of the licence issued under the Explosives Act was not capable of being used for building purposes, the said area within a radius of 59 metres should have been excluded for the purpose of assessment. The Tribunal accepted this contention and held that 59 metres radius land has to be left without any building and, therefore, no building could be put up in the prohibited area and, therefore, that area has to be exempted for the purpose of Urban Land Tax. This order is now challenged by...
The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax Vs. A.R. Balaji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ120
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The first respondent is the owner of urban land owning inter alia T.S. 9/2 (BK.65 Wd 1) measuring 1 ground and 1253 sq.ft. which has been let out to a school. The school itself is not run by the owner. A notice in Form 7 was issued to the owner for enhancement of the urban land tax. 2. In reply to the notice, the urban land owner contended that the land on which the building stands is used for school purposes called Palaniappa School, which is a Government recognised school and no tuition fees are being levied and he was therefore entitled to exemption under Section 29(h) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act, and, therefore, the proposed levy of urban land tax may be proposed levy of urban land tax may be dropped. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban land tax, Madurai South, took the view that the owner was getting rent from the school and therefore the urban land tax was assessable. The market value was fixed at Rs. 10...
Periyanayagam Vs. Rajendran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ381
Ratnam, J.1. These second appeals have been preferred by Periyanayagam, who figured as second defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 97 of 1977 before the same Court. S.A. No. 1668 of 1980 arises out of O.S. No. 290 of 1978 wherein the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession with reference to two items of properties had been prayed for by respondents 1 and 2 therein. S.A. No. 1669 of 1980 arises out of O.S. No. 97 of 1977 instituted by the second defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1978 with reference to one out of two items forming the subject matter of O.S. No. 290 of 1978, praying for the relief of permanent injunction. The two items of properties forming the subject-matter of these second appeals are of an extent of 1.06 acres in survey No. 1087/1 and western 85 cents out of a total extent of 2.85 acres in survey No. 1082/6 in the hamlet of Vekakollai. The third respondent in S.A. No. 1668 of 1980, namely, Pa...
Bagyalakshmiammal Vs. Dhanalakshmiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ157
Ratnam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 710 of 1975, Additional District Munsif's Court, Salem, is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was instituted by the appellant in a representative capacity respresenting the residents of Kurumbar Street, Salem. Her case is that the property delineated as 'GFEMKH' in the plaintiff plan ExA.1 and described in the schedule A to the plaintiff, belongs to her by virtue of a settlement deed dated 10.4.1957 executed by Marappa Naicker in her favour and marked as Ex.A.5. According to the appellant, the east west measurement of the property is 24-1/2 feet, while, the north south measurement is 44 feet, and the property consists of a house and site as well. The further case of the appellant is that the portion marked ABCDMEFG in ExA.1 is known as Kurumbar Street Lane and belongs to the 4th respondent in the second appeal. The appellant put forth the case that the 1st respondent encroached upon a portion of the Municipal lane immediatel...
Arputham Vs. Singaravelu Nadar and Sons Represented by Partners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ261
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, who is the Appellate Authority Under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, dismissing an appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller, Nagercoil, Under Section 11(4) of the Act.2. On the 16th of April, 1986 the Rent Controller passed an order Under Section 11(3) of the Act directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent on or before 31-5-1986. The petitioner did not make the deposit within the time granted and ultimately, an order was passed by the Rent Controller on 17-6-1986, stopping all further proceedings and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the landlords on or before 31-7-1986. That order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller.3. In this revision petition it is argued that the Rent Controller di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›