Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ355
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This petition for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the revision petition has been posted before me on an office note objection to the maintainability thereof.2. The petitioner who suffered an order of eviction in R.C.O.P.No. 46 of 1984, District Munsif's Court, Devakottai, preferred an appeal R.C.A.3 of 1985 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The appeal was dismissed on 27.6.1988. The petitioner filed an application for certified copies on 4.8.1988 and they were ready on 17.8.1988. The petitioner presented the C.R.P.on 12.9.1988 In this Court along with a petition to condone the delay of 33 days.3. Under Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) as amended by Art XXIII of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' an application to this Court for the exercise of its power of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ365
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission to M.Sc. (Zoology) Course in the Presidency College (Autonomous), Madras 5, for the academic year 1988-89 and received the acknowledgement card dated 29.6.1988 for the receipt and registration of his application. He was assigned the Registration Number Z-45.2. For the admission to 1988-89 academic year, the Presidency College, Madras, issued prospectus for M.A., M.Sc., M.Com., M.Phil., etc., mentioning the eligibility qualifications, etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the course. It may be stated at this stage that there are only 18 seats for the I year M.Sc., (Zoology). The first selection list was published on 9.7.1988 and ten out of eighteen students seem to have joined the course after the interview on 19.7.1988. A Waiting List was also published on 19.7.1988 mentioning eighteen other names and six from this list joined after attending the interview on 20.7.1988. A second Waiting Lis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ232
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These two revisions arise in this way. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in a suit for recovery of possession. An appeal has been preferred by the defendants as indigent persons. Pending the requisite application to prefer the appeal as indigent persons, the defendants sought for stay of the decree of the first court in C.M.P. No. 1426 of 1984. Initially there was an order of interim stay. Before the communication of the order of interim stay, the plaintiffs in execution, have taken delivery on 20-2-1984. The defendants filed the two applications-one not to record delivery and another for re-delivery. These applications have been dismissed by the court below, and these two revisions are directed against the orders of the court below.2. Mr. K. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the defendants-petitioners herein would submit that though the order of interim stay was not commu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ401
Srinivasan, J.1. This case raises a question, which according to learned Counsel has not come up for consideration so far in any Court. In short, the question is whether an intermediary Bank which has merely communicated to the beneficiary the letters of credit opened by a Foreign Bank is entitled to get a refund of the amount paid by it to a person who discounted the bill drawn by the beneficiary after it is found that the foreign Bank never existed.2. The relevant facts are these: The 9th defendant in the suit, hereinafter referred to as the 'seller' purported to enter into a contract for supply of sun glasses with M/s. Olerewagu Loadipupo, Esq.6, Dabira Street, Shomulu, Lagos in Nigeria hereinafter referred to as the 'buyer'. The plaintiff received a communication dated 25.9.1971 fromBritish Trust and Saving Corporation Ltd., Lagos, Nigeria, hereinafter referred to as the 'Foreign Bank' requesting for a notification to the seller of an irrevocable letter of credit opened by the Fore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC269
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of iron and steel items including shutter lathe sections. According to the petitioner, the relevant Central Excise Tariff applicable to the manufacture of shutter lathe section would be item 26-AA(ia). But when the residuary tariff item 68 was introduced in the year 1975, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, by his order dated 17-7-1976, classified the said product under tariff item 68. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector and by the Order dt. 23-12-1977, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for fresh disposal. But once again the Assistant Collector, by his order dated 23-2-1979, held that the item is classifiable under tariff item 68 which necessitated the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Collector and on a direction from the Appellate Collector by his order dated 16-1-1980, the Assistant Collector visited the factory of the petitioner on 25-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ446
T. Sathiadev, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1760 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil. Court, Madras, are the appellants. Plaintiff and defendants 3 to 7 are the six respondents herein. Defendants 4 to 7 remained absent and they were set ex parte in the suit. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,210 with future interest and costs.2. It was claimed in the plaint as follows: Defendants 2 to 7 are partners in the first defendant firm. For the valuable consideration received at Bombay, first defendant gave to one Meenakshi a cheque for Rs. 14,000 on 24.11.1970, drawn on Canara Bank. On presentation of the cheque for encashment, the bank returned it stating 'refer to the drawer'. Thereafter, on 10.12.1970, she had endorsed the cheque in favour of her brother the plaintiff for valuable consideration. Plaintiff demanded payment of the amount as per the cheque from defendants, and they having neglected to pay the suit has been filed.3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested this clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)ILLJ109Mad
1. There are eight writ appeals and two writ petitions. The writ appeals are directed against the common order of Padmanabhan. J., the same reported in V. Ganeshan v. State Bank of India and others (1988-LLJ-64). Nationalised Banks - the employers - are the appellants in the writ appeals. The employees of Nationalised Banks are respondents in the writ appeals and in the two writ petitions, such employees, represented by their unions, are the petitioners. The controversy, both in the writ appeals and in the writ petitions, stems out of the actions taken or proposed to be taken by the Nationalised Banks against their employees. We shall first deal with the writ appeals. We have avoided delineating minute details of the facts of the cases, in view of the scope of the points argued before us. In six out of eight writ appeals, the employees went on demonstrations during working hours of the day in question and thereby absented themselves from the work spot for those hours and did not do the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1990)DMC567
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This second appeal is directed by the petitioner husband challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in C.M.A. 54 of 1979, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows : The appellant (herein after referred to as the petitioner) married the respondent on 9 9-1968, according to castecustom. On account of the lawful wedlock she gave birth to a daughter on 3-7-1969. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent used to tease him and provoke him often. On several occasions she threatened to commit suicide. She insisted on the petitioner to start a separate establishment after severing his connection with the other members of his family, namely, mother, brother, brother's wife and unmarried brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ172
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 315 of 1984, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. That suit was laid by respondents 1 to 7 herein against the petitioner and respondents 8 to 10, praying for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit properties. According to the case of the petitioner, summons in the suit was served on him and he engaged a counsel and the suit was posted to 28-8-1984, but that on 22-8-1984, respondents 1, 8, 9 and 10 arid two of the Advocate-relations of the petitioner, approached the petitioner and represented that there was no need to contest the suit, as they were agreeable for a compromise on the basis of allotting 1/6 share each to the 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4, and 1/6 share to plaintiffs 2 to 7 together, in respect of the suit items. The further case of the petitioner was that his signatures were obtained on several papers, blank as well as written up, and that the petitioner was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ515
Bellie, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff is the sister and the defendant is her younger brother.2. One Kanaka Kavandar had three daughters viz., Kamlambal, Valambal and Meenakshi. He executed a will and died on 23-7-1923. In this will he gave certain properties to this two younger daughters Valambal and Meenakshi on condition that they should enjoy the same without any power of alienation till their life time and after their death the properties should to go to heirs absolutely. Valambal and Meenakshi partitioned the properties between them and each of them was in possession of separate portions in that partition the plaint 'A' schedule property was allotted to Meenakshi. The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant is the son of the said meenakshi.3. It is the plaintiffs case that after the life-time of Meenakshi the properties were being enjoyed on leasing out the same on warm basis and dividing the income between the plaintiff and ...
Tag this Judgment!