Chennai Court February 1988 Judgments
N. Deenadayalan Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ25
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The order impugned is one of suspension, dated 27.1.1987. The Rule invoked is Rule 3(e)(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. It is stated that the petitioner is placed under suspension on the ground that an enquiry into a grave charge is under contemplation and in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in the public interest to place the petitioner under suspension. Admittedly, on the date of the impugned order of suspension, there was no charge as such framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 6.10.1987. It is categorically averred in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, filed in support of this writ petition, that there had been no extension of the suspension issued against him and in the absence of extension, the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed. Normally, as per Clause 5(ii) of G.O.Ms. No. 211, Personnel and Administ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Nagammal Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ482Mad
1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent in Industrial Dispute No. 54 of 1979. That was an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with reference to the demand for revision of wages to the workers employed in the canteen run by the second respondent. The issue referred for adjudication read as follows : 'Whether the demand for the revision of wages to the canteen workers is justified, if so to fix the quantum'. 2. The first respondent adverted to the question as to whether the workers employed in a canteen run by the second respondent would come within the definition of 'workman' of the second respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. That the workers employed in the canteen run by the second respondent are workmen of the second respondent within the meaning of the definition of 'workman' under the Act was not disputed by the second respondent and even before me there is no dispute over this aspect b...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dharmalingam Vs. His Excellency Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad48
ORDERMohan, J. 1. The writ petition has been preferred by an advocate of this Court. The respondents cited are L1. His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2. The Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu Smt V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and 3. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Madras.2. The facts as averred shortly in his affidavit are as follows: -- The second respondent had paraded some of the members of the Legislative Assembly on 2nd January 1988 before the residence of the first respondent (Governor). The Governor asked the second respondent to form the ministry of A.I.A.D.M.K. on condition that the second respondent would show on the floor of the Assembly the strength of the supported majority. The petitioner would state that the Governor had hot subjectively satisfied himself and yet prepared to give a long rope to the second respondent and thereby giving room for speculation regarding the stability and strength of the ministry of the State of ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palani Gounder Vs. S.P. Thangavel Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ78
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The tenant who was unsuccessful before the Revenue Court, Coimbatore, has preferred this revision challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the said court.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: the respondent herein has filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner herein under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following allegations. (For convenience sake, the array of parties before the lower court is adopted in this revision). The petitioner before the lower court became entitled to the property in question by virtue of the settlement deed dated 20-8-1976. He, after exchange of notice, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in O.S. No. 493 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet, against the respondent, and the same was later transferred to District Munsif Court on the ground that he unla...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kannan and Others Vs. Indchem Electronics Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad62
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J. 1. In this case, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is not a judgment within the meaning of Cl. 15 Letters Patent of this High Court. Much argument was addressed by both the parties on this substantive question of law as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word 'judgment'. As we are not concerned with the entire facts of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the same in this judgment, but suffice to mention certain salient facts for the determination of the legal question.2. The respondent-company has filed C.S. 551 of 1987 for the following reliefs :--(a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for the torts committed by them; (b) restraining the defendants from carrying on business activity in the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals like Alpha computers and computer peripherals like Alpha Numeric terminals. Colour graphic Terminals and other pro...
Tag this Judgment!Lipton India Limited Vs. Smt. M.M.K. Sara Uma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ262
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a petition for eviction filed by the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. The respondent sought for eviction on the averment that she was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Prince Hardwares' in partnership with some others. According to the respondent her business was being carried on in a rented premises at No. 156 Rasappa Chetty Street, Madras-1 and the tenancy therefor stood in the name of one of the partners, namely M.A. Hassan. It is alleged in the petition that the owners of the premises in which the respondent's business was being carried on filed a suit C.S.No. 10774 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for eviction and also for damages and that the suit was pending. It was, therefore, the case of the respondent that there was immediate necessity for the respondent to get possession of the petition premises from t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Annamalai Vs. the Collector of Ramanathapuram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ398
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. R. Annamalai of Veppankulam (via) Kallal, Ramnad District is the petitioner in W.P.No. 1720 of 1983. The Collector of Ramnad at Madurai; the Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai; and the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare, Madras are the respondents in W.P.No. 1720 of 1983. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the second respondent comprised in RCO-A/1469-82, dated 20.1.1983 and the 4(1) Notification of the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 2819, S.W.D. dated 24-11-1982, published at page 25 of the Extraordinary issue of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 8-12-1982, with respect to the acquisition of the lands of the petitioner in S.No. 126/1C and S.No. 126/78 of Veppankulam village, Karaikudi Taluk, Ramnad District.2. R. Krishnamurthi, Theli Village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot District is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2199 of 1983. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by under Secretary to Government, Social Welfare ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kannan and ors. Vs. Indchem Electronics Limited, Developed Plots fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ147
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. In this case, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Much argument was addressed by both the parties on this substantive question of law as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word 'Judgment'. As we are not concerned with the entire facts of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the same in this judgment, but suffice to mention certain salient facts for the determination of the legal question.2. The respondent-company has filed O.S. No. 551 of 1987 for the following reliefs:(a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for the torts committed by them.(b) restraining the defendants from carrying on business activity in the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals like Alpha computers and computer peripherals like Alpha Numeric Terminals, Colour Graphic Terminals and other...
Tag this Judgment!Angammal Vs. R. Sankaranarayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad53; (1988)IMLJ467
Ratnam, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. 901 of 1976, District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The circumstances giving rise to this second appeal are briefly as under. The appellant was a subscriber to a Rs. 5000 chit conducted by M/s. Uma Investment's (P) Ltd., Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as Uma Investments for short). The subscription payable was Rs. 125 per month for 40 months and the chit commenced on 23-12-1971. The appellant subscribed towards that chit, inclusive of dividends earned, a sum of Rs. 4452-19 and she took the chit in the auction held on 3-6-1974 for Rs. 4500. Before the amount could be paid to the appellant, the Foreman appears to have encountered some financial difficulties. The respondent was a subscriber to another chit for Rs. 5000 conducted by the same Foreman, Uma Investments, through its branch at Palani The monthly subscribtion payable by him ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Somasundaram Vs. S. Thirupurasundari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ248
Sathiadev, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 146 of 1979 on the file of this Court is the appellant, and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the respondents herein. First plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal representatives have come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 8.2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 24.4.1987 passed in Application No. 821 of 1987 confirming the order dated 18.2.1987 passed by the Master in Application No. 4389 of 1986 in E.P. No. 80 of 1985 in C.S. No. 146 of 1979. Late Somasundaram filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 with interest against the defendants/Appellant herein, and during the pendency of the suit, he died in October, 1981, and therefore, his widow, son and daughters have come on record as his legal representatives, and thereafter the suit was decreed on 30.4.1983, on merits. They filed E.P. Nos. 110 of 1983 and 80 of 1985, and the appellant paid Rs. 1,00,000. It is thereafter the appellant filed Application No. 4389 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »