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.
D. Sasidharan Vs. Sipcot, Represented by Its Managing Director and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ248
ORDERSrinivasan, 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 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company 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 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..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 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share ce...
Rama Nava Nirman Samithi, Hyderabad Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2620
ORDER1. The challenge in this writ petitioner is against G.O. Ms. No. 1101 Finance (Raffles) Department, dated 6-10-1989. By the said G.O., the State Government directed that the sale of lottery tickets of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the lotteries organised by Government of India and other State Government shall alone be permitted within the State Tamil Nadu and the lotteries of any kind are not authorised to be sold within the State of Tamil Nadu. The G.O. made it clear that any contravention of the order will be dealt with under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner claims to have been authorised by the State of Andhra Pradesh to conduct a private lottery. He has produced the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 4th April 1988 which permitted him to conduct lottery for a period of one year. He has also produced a later order dated 7-3-1989 which extended the period of six months. In the later order, it is specifically mentioned that it is the last ...
M. Selvam and ors. Vs. T.P. Kuppanna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ385
Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 110 of 1963, Sub Court, Cuddalore, which was later transferred to the Sub Court, Villupuram, and renumbered as O.S. No. 9 of 1982, are the appellants in this second appeal. The appellants are the children of Manicka Mudaliar, who died on 17.11.1959, and Kuppulakshmi Ammal, who figured as the first defendant in the suit. Manicka Mudaliar was carrying on cloth trade in Bazar Street, Villupuram, and at the time of his death, he had incurred certain debts and had also outstandings due to him as well as stock in-trade in his business. At the time of death of Manicka Mudaliar, the appellants were young children and Kuppulakshmi Ammal was also in an advanced state of pregnancy and the creditors of deceased Manicka Mudaliar wanted some arrangements to be made for the discharge of the debts due to them. Thereupon, Kuppulakshmi Ammal, on behalf of the appellants and herself, executed a deed of trust in favour of the respondent herein and defendants 3 to 8 ...
C. Paulraj Vs. the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Bhaskaran Justice Bhaskaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ163
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the clashes between various castes in Thevaram Village and other places in Madurai district in September, 1989 made under G.O.Ms.No. 1547, Public (Law and Order-B) Department, dated 19.9.1989.2. The petitioner alleges that he is a permanent resident of Chimanur in Madurai district and he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He also alleges that there were communal riots in the years 1957,1968,1978,1988 and 1989 and inspite of stringent provisions of Law under the Criminal Procedure Code, and Indian Penal Code, killing of Scheduled Caste people are going on day by day and as such they are forced to defend themselves by all means within their reach. It is further stated in the affidavit that in connection with the recent Bodinaickanur communal clashes, the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed one Member Inquiry Commission to be headed by Justice Bhaskaran of Ma...
T.B. Adhikesavalu Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ457
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 4775 of 1979. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. We shall refer to the parties as per their array in the Writ Petition.2. The petitioner was a Development Officer in the employ of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, and while he was functioning in Namakkal Taluk, it transpired during the claim of investigation of life policy on the life of Kalianna Goundar of Peramandampalayam village, Namakkal Taluk, that the claim was not a genuine one and hence the case was referred to Special Police Establishment/Central Bureau of Investigation, Madras, for a more detailed investigation. The first information report was filed on 18.7.1974 in which the petitioner was shown as the first accused. He, along with others, was found to have had been instrument...
R. Rajagopal Reddy and Others Vs. Padmini Chandrasekaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad353; (1995)IIMLJ603
ORDERNainar Sundaram. J.1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge sitting in the Original Side in C.S. No. 110 of 1971. The First defendant in the Suit Originally preferred the Original Sick Appeal. The First-Defendant died pending the Original Side Appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The plaintiff was the first-respondent. The second-defendant died pending the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 8 and they are respondents 3 to 7 herein. The third-defendant is the second respondent. We propose to refer to the parlies as per their array in the suit, because it would be convenient for dealing with the questions.2. The pleas of the plaintiff in support of her prayer for a declaration of title and for a permanent injunction could be broadly stated as follows; In 1950, the second-defendant entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the predecessor in interest of...
T. Savariraj Pillai Vs. M/S. R.S.S. Vastrad and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad198
ORDER1. Defendant in O. S. No. 1293 of 1984 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli is the petitioner. Plaintiff is the sole respondent. Plaintiff filed the suit based on equitable mortgage and for other reliefs, and at the stage when defendant was examined as D.W. 1, he filed I.A. No. 466 of 1987 under O. 23, R. 1(3) and S. 151, Civil P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of the present suit. The suit was filed by M/s. R.S.S. Vashtrad an Company through one of its partners M. M. Nalavad. He had sworn to before Court that he had filed Exhibit A-2 partnership deed to show that he is a partner of the plaintiff firm even prior to 10-10-1983, but, however, this fact was not intimated to the Registrar of Firms by the Auditor of the Firm, and that entry had been made in the Register only diring the pendency of the suit, and therefore, it being a formal defect, which would not go into the root of ...
Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. K. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT261(Mad)
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in W.P. No. 808 of 1979, decided on 6.7.1982. 2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case as the same have been given by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal. 3. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge was the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case. A criminal appeal at that time was admittedly pending in this Court. The criminal appeals has since been dismissed though the order of confiscation of the goods has been confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon three Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Kanniahlal Jethaji v. Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi W.A. No. 106 of 1977, dated 30.6.1977, Bhuvarlal v. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, (W.A. No. 540 of 1982, dated 11.8.1989) and The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi v. M.K.S. Abu...
Kalyani Vs. G.V. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ29
Ratnam, J.1. The tenant, who is in occupation of one room in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 10, and three rooms, a Varandah, two bath rooms and open space in the ground floor, on a monthly rent of Rs. 155 in door No. 74, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras-1 is the petitioner in these Civil Revision Petitions, arising under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Respondents 1 to 3 in these Civil Revision Petitions are the landlords and there is no dispute regarding this. They in R.C.P. No. 1424 of 1983, filed under S.10 (2) (i) of the Act, before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner from the room in her occupation in the ground floor on the ground that she had committed wilful default in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem for 21 months from 1-5-1981 to 31-1-1983. In the ...
R. Ramakrishna Babu Vs. M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ56
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner who is a practising Advocate of this Court and one of the active Members of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has come up to this Court to direct the first respondent or any of his Cabinet Members forbearing them from inaugurating or opening the 'Ninaivalayam' of Puratchi Thalaivar Bharath Ratna Dr. M.G. Ramachandran without adding the words 'Puratchi Thalaivar Bharath Rathna' prefix to the name of Dr. M.G. Ramachandran either on 15-11-1989 or any other earlier or subsequent date before the end of November, 1989.2. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner narrates the events up to the date on which the first respondent herein took office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. It is alleged in the affidavit that the Governor of Tamil Nadu, during the President's Rule, invited from various technically qualified persons by public notice who are having technical knowledge on the design of the 'Ninaivalayam' to be constructed, for Dr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »