Chennai Court November 1989 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.
N.G. Subramaniam Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ320
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.1. The appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7415 of 1982 decided on 2nd April, 1983, and 7493 of 1982 decided on 7th April, 1983.2. The short facts which gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions were that six posts of graduate Headmasters had been allotted to Gudiyattam Panchayat Union for the acadamic year 1972-73 by the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. Out of the six posts, four posts were utilised and the remaining two could not be utilised. Those two posts were surrendered to the Director of School Education. Consequent upon the surrender the posts were converted as Middle School. Headmasters Subsequently, it transpires that the appointing authority wrote to the first respondent seeking clarification whether the posts could be revised and filled up. After receiving the clarification, the appellants were appointed to the two posts. They were, however, later on reverted by order dated 14.7.1982. It was that rev...
Talayar Tea Company Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas95(Mad)
1. These writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment in W.P. Nos. 3343 and 3538 to 3543 of 1983 dated March 31, 1989. The writ petitions were filed against the order of the Company Law Board dated February 10, 1983, passed under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act," by the Talayar Tea Company Ltd., a public limited company, incorporated on January 10, 1945, and having its registered office at Coimbatore. The shares of the company are listed on the Madras Stock Exchange. The second respondent (ranking of parties as in writ petitions ) moved the Company Law Board under section 111 of the Act for directing the rectification of the register of members of the company by entering the names of the respective second respondents in relation to the shares purchased by them and which were produced along with the requisite applications at the registered office of the company for carrying out the transfer. They were tendered on December 17, 1980, t...
T.i. Miller Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT214(Mad)
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the order in W.P. No. 1024 of 1981 dated 20-7-1983, W.A. No. 803/83 is filed by the Writ Petitioner, whereas the latter appeal W.A. No. 484/84, is by the respondents therein. 2. The Writ Petition was filed against the order dated 5-2-1981 of the second respondent (ranking of parties as in Writ Petition) confirming the demand for Rs. 8,79,449.13, substituting the original demand for Rs. 7,09,237.84. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cycle lamps which fall under Item 68 of the I Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. As required under Rule 173-D of the Central Excise Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', the company was filing classification lists for the goods manufactured and cleared by them. They were being approved from time to time. Treating cycle lamps as part of cycle, under Rule 8 exemption was granted for cycles and parts thereof under N...
T. Vadadri Alias Chellappa Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Its Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ219
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the Notification made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1096. Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17.7.1978 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9.8.1978 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner's lands comprised in S. Nos. 86/4, 86/8, 93/8, 96/11, 101/13A, 102/6 and 102/8 of Thiruvanmiyur Village Madras-41.2. Earlier the petitioner herein and his brother preferred W.P. No. 1478 of 1982 before this Court challenging the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in pursuance of the notification which is challenged in this writ petition. Mohan, J. (as he then was) quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act leaving the Section 4 (1) Notification intact by order dated 5.9.1983. Subsequently an appeal has been preferred by the respondents in W.A. No. 470 of 1985 and it was...
The Talayar Tea Company Limited Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ466
Sathiadev, J.1. These writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment in W.P.No. 3343 and 3538 to 3543 of 1983, dated 31-3-1989. The writ petitions were filed against the order of the Company Law Board, dated February, 1983 passed under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act., by the Talayar Tea Company Limited, a public limited company, incorporated on 10-1-1945 and having its registered office at Coimbatore. The shares of the company are listed on the Madras Stock Exchange. Second respondent (ranking of parties as in writ petitions) moved the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the Act for directing the rectification of the Register of members of the company by entering the names of the respective second respondents in relation to the shares purchased by them and which were produced along with the requisite applications at the registered office of the company for carrying out the transfers. They were tendered on 17-12-1980 through their A...
Palaniyandi and ors. Vs. Arumugha Muthiriar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ441
Janarthanam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 409 of 1973 on the file of learned District Munsif, Karur are the appellants in the second appeal. Respondents 1 to 4 are defendants 1 to 4 respectively. That suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, ayan punja lands measuring 1 acre and 45 cents in S.F. No. 439/3 with one Tamarind tree and two Karuvel trees in Chinthalavadi Village.2. The pith and substance the case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Malayala Pandaram and one Ponnusami Pandaram. The plaintiffs' mother purchased the same on 14.10.1935 for valuable consideration under Ex.A6 sale deed. Ever since then she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequent to the death of their mother the suit property devolved on them and they ha...
N. Janakiraman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Loca ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ216
ORDERBakthavatsalam J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the Government passed in G.O.Rt. No. 1191, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 10.8.1983 passing an order of reduction permanently in rank from the post of Bill Collector to chain man.2. The petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Bill Collector and he was working from 1.4.1965. The petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 4.9.1972. An explanation was called for from him and he was reinstated in service on 8.1.1973 as Bill Collector. Another charge memo was issued on him on 19.6.1973 and an explanation was called for from him, which was given by him on 28.6.1973. An order of permanent reversion was passed on 1.9.1973 reverting the petitioner as chain man. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of Municipal Administration on 14.7.1976 which was rejected in 1977. The petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent Government on 24.7.1979. Again, the petitioner was as...
K. Chinnappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Kangeyam Panchayat Board Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ241
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction forbearing the first respondent from conducting public auction for the shops in the Kangeyam Bus-Stand on 11.8.1989 pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 19.6.1989 and consequently direct the respondent to grant the lease of the shops to the petitioners as per resolution No. 69 of 1989....3. The Kangeyam Bus Stand, which was in the junction point of Dharapuram-Erode and Coimbatore-Trichy road was situated in Kangeyam Town Panchayat. Since it became congested one and not suitable for the growing population of passengers necessity arose to expand the old Bus Stand as new one with provisions of shopping, retiring and public convenience facilities. Since the old bus stand was not suitable t...
B. Vedachalam. Vs. Sri. Pandurangan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ328
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. Application No. 348 of 1989 is for directing the Official Assignee to deliver the key of the premises at No. 30/2 Godown Street, Madras to the applicants to enable the applicants to resume their business therein. The applicants who were partners of a firm Sathianarayana and Co. and were carrying on business in the said premises, were adjudicated insolvents in their own petition. viz I.P. No. 9 of 1989 by order dated 3.2.1989. At that time, they were tenants of the said premises. Admittedly, the said tenancy was for a period of 10 years from 1.1.1981 to 31.12.1990. That is, even during the pendency of the said lease, they were adjudicated insolvents. On adjudication, the premises was sealed by the Official Assignee and he is having the key of the said premises.2. Now, the applicants have filed this application for getting back possession of the said premises for carrying on their business.3. The first-respondent-Official Assignee opposes this application. His re...
D. Sasidharan and Vs. Sipcot and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas44(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows : '... to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first and second respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the directors of the company to forbear from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44 to 121 held by them in the second respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the second respondent-company.' 3. The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows : '... to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to forbear from transferring any shares of the second respondent-company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to September 25,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »