Chennai Court July 1988 Judgments
D. Uthirakumaran Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ205Mad
Mohan, J. 1. The petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Deputy Collector-Category II, in the year 1978. He successfully completed his probation on 1st January 1981. He was promoted as District Revenue Officer-Category I of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service. He was posted as Joint Director of Stationery and Printing on 26th August 1986. He was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and posted as Senior Regional Manager at Madras on 27th February, 1987. By proceedings dated 6th February, 1988, he was posted as District Revenue Officer at Chengalpattu. He joined the same on 8th February, 1988. On 12th March, 1988, Mr. Sameer Vyas was posted as Collector of Chengalpattu at Kancheepuram. 2. According to the petitioner, the said Collector, not being well acquainted with Tamil, seems to have misunderstood the petitioner which led to some misunderstanding. While the matter stood thus, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, by G.O.Ms. No. 534, Public (Special-A)...
Tag this Judgment!Pillaiyar Soda Factory Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC93; 1989(24)LC574(Madras); 1989(39)ELT383(Mad)
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ quashing the proceedings of the second respondent - Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, in his C. No. V/ID/15/3/82, CX-3 Order No. 66/87, dated 3.11.1987, and to pass such further or other necessary orders. As these writ petitions arise out of a common order they are dealt with together. 2. The brief facts of the case are these : These six petitioners in these six writ petitions are different partnership or proprietary concerns engaged in the manufacture and sale of aerated waters. The following are the particulars relating to their name, constitution, date of establishment, etc. : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. W.P. Name of Proprietary or Name of Date ofNo. No. Unit partnership proprietor establishmentof 1987 concern or partners------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!D. Pattammal Vs. K. Kalyanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad78; (1988)IIMLJ437
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This matter relates to the correctness of the valuation of the plaint in the suit and the Court-fee payable thereon though the revision petition is against an order appointing an advocate-Commissioner to determine the market value of the property.2. The petitioner herein filed the suit out of which this revision petition arises for delivery of possession 'of the entire ground floor and the portion in the rear side of the first floor in No. 18 Nattu Pillayar Koil St., G.T. Madras 1, more particularly described in Schedule B to the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff had stated that the property described in Schedule A originally belonged to one Perumal Mudaliar, father-in-law of the plaintiff, and, by a registered deed of settlement dated 29-9-1933, he settled the same in favour of the plaintiffs husband granting him life interest and after his death, his widow, the plaintiff to have a life interest and after her lifetime, the male heirs of her husba...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Ramasethu Vs. K.R. Athappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ149
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The civil revision petition and the civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been preferred by the decree-holder/ auction purchaser in O.S. No. 342 of 1971, Sub-Court, Madurai, against the order of the Court below in EA. No. 1150. of 1981 in E.P. No. 164 of 1973 in O.S. No. 342 of 1971 filed by the first respondent herein under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, setting aside the court sale held on 3-9-1979 and confirmed on 3-11-1979. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these proceedings are as follows:- The second respondent had borrowed moneys from the petitioner in the civil revision petition and the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holder') on a promissory note and for the recovery of the amounts due from the second respondent, the suit in O.S.342 of 1971, sub-court, Madurai, was instituted. Even on the very day on which the suit was filed, an application in I.A. No. 555 of 1971 praying f...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Regina Vs. S. Sourirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ326
ORDERSrinivasam, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of the same order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, granting an amendment of the Judgment and decree dated 25-3-1987 made in M.O.P.No. 20 of 1987. C.R.P.No. 1237 of 1988 is filed by the husband while C.R.P.812 of 1988 is filed by the wife.2. The parties hereto filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry on 18-11-1986. That petition was filed by them under the provisions of the French Code Civil. When the Court returned the petition pointing out that the application would not be maintainable under the French Code Civil and the proper remedy of the parties would to file a petition before the proper forum, under the Special Marriage Act, it was represented with an endorsement that the Code Civil would be applicable and that the counsel would like to argue the matter before the Court. The Office was requested to post the matter in open Court for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalsamy Industries Vs. M.M.T.C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC82; 1989(20)LC103(Madras); 1989(39)ELT390(Mad)
1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 4.8.1981 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relevant to the relating to the order in prayer aforesaid on the file of the respondents herein comprised in the return of the said respondents herein to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. Raj and Raj, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. K. Gopal, Advocate for the 1st respondent, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the 2nd respondent, and the 3rd respondent not appearing in person or by the advocate, the Court made the following Order :- The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Met/SS/Strips/81 dt. 7.7.1981 and quash the same. 2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by the Managing Pa...
Tag this Judgment!S. Duraipandian Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ23Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in R.C. No. 132510/Hr. Secondary Education/A2/84, dated 3rd May 1984 of the second respondent/the Director of School Education, Madras, quashing the same and directing the third respondent/the Secretary, K. A. Higher Secondary School, Arumuganeri, to promote the petitioner to the post of Headmaster in the third respondent school. 2. The petitioner is a B. T. Assistant in the Department of History in the third respondent K. A. Higher Secondary School, Arumuganeri, from 1968. Subsequent to his appointment, he took the post Graduate Degree in 1978 and M.Ed., Degree in 1983. He also claims to have passed the Account Test for Executive Officers conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He has put in 31 years of service as B.T. Assistant in this School. On 31st May 1984 Mr. Anthonymuthu retired from the post of hea...
Tag this Judgment!T.E. Vijayaragavachari and ors. Vs. the Executive Trustee, Sri Devarja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ493
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The Court below was in error in declining to implead the petitioners as plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 10 of 1906 of District Court, Chengalpattu. Originally the suit had been instituted in a representative capacity on behalf of Thengalais against Vadagalais restraining Vadagalais from reciting Thengalai Tamil Prabandhams and manthiram during the pooja period and the matter went up to Privy Council and an injunction decree was granted. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs, who instituted the suit in Original Suit No. 30 of 1906, in a representative capacity, are not alive. Complaining of some violation of the decree for injunction, the petitioners wanted that they should be impleaded and permitted to take appropriate action decree. The Executive Trustee, who was actually holding the office at the time of the alleged violation of injunction decree. Though the Executive Trustee, who was actually holding the office at the time of the alleged violation of the inju...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Arunachalam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ139
V. Ratnam, J.1. In these petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for the condonation of the delay in preferring Second Appeals to this Court against the common judgment in A.S. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1986, District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore. In the common affidavit filed in support of these petitions, the petitioner has stated that after the disposal of the appeals by the Court below on 14-8-1987, he had instructed his counsel to apply for copies of judgment and decrees for preferring Second Appeals and as he was under the impression that the necessary copy application would have been filed, he did not contact his counsel till 13-11-1987. The affidavit further proceeds to state that on 13-11-1987, when the petitioner contacted his counsel, he was informed that copies had not been applied for and thereupon, the petitioner is stated to have asked for an application to be made for obtaining the copies and an application was also made on 16-1...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed HussaIn Bevi Alias Syed Sultan Bevi Vs. Haja Sultan Kabir Sha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ205
ORDERRatnam, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the common order of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam in O.P.Nos. 66 and 18 of 1982. O.P.No. 66 of 1982 was filed by the appellant in these appeals under the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act to appoint her as the property guardian of her minor son Syed Mohammed Hussain Sahib. O.P.No. 18 of 1982 was filed by the respondent in these appeals, who is the paternal uncle of the minor, praying that he should appointed as the property guardian of the minor.2. One Haji Section V. Syed Mohammed Hussain Alim Sahib had two sons Haja Sultan Kabir Shahul Hameed Sahib, the respondent herein, and V.M. Syed Hasan Kuthus Sahib the father of the minor, V.M. Syed Hasan Kuthus Sahib married the appellant herein on 33.1972 and the minor Syed Mohammed Hussan Sahib was born on 27.6.1973. Even when the minor was in the womb of his mother, V.M. Syed Hasain Kuthus Sahib died. Subsequently, proceedings for appointment of a guardi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »