Chennai Court December 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.
S. Kaliappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commissioner and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ530
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam. J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the first respondent's order dated 11.11.1988 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to alter the petitioner's correct date of birth by substituting 11.6.1933 in the Service Register instead of 17.10.1931 to enable him to continue in service till 30.6.1991, the actual date of superannuation.2. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Madras Judicial Ministerial Service in 1954 in District Munsif Court at Melur, Madurai District. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Sub-Magistrate at Arni, North Arcot District. Thereafter, he was promoted as Judicial First Class Magistrate and posted in Virudhunagar in 1980. In the public interest, owing to an emergency which had arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in the category of District Mu...
Naina Mohamed Vs. Palanikumar Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ99
Bellie, J.1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether the notice of termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff-landlord to the defendant-tenant is valid in law.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein, for eviction against the defendant, appellant herein, has been decreed by the trial court (District Munsif, Manamadurai) and that has been confirmed by the appellate Court (Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga).3. It is argued by Mr. R. Arunagirinathan, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the tenancy is a monthly one and it corresponds to English calendar month, and the termination of the tenancy notice Ex.A2 dated 28.11.1984 is not in accordance with the prescription in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore it is invalid and hence the suit which has been filed on the basis of that notice is not sustainable and thus the suit should have been dismissed.4. It is not disputed that the tenancy is a monthly one and even in the tenan...
Haja Moideen and Etc. Vs. Government of India and ors., Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1325
1. A few of the convicts, who are now in prison for a few years in pursuance of the verdict of this Court and the Apex Court, sentencing them to the extreme penalty or law and who are awaiting execution, have thronged this Court by these writ petitions with a cry "I want to live-let me not die", though the Court had verdicted, they deserve to die. These writ petitions are mainly based on the long delay on the part of the executive in disposing of their mercy petitions. They claim to have suffered mental agony of living under the shadow of death for a long long period and clamour that they should not suffer that agony and longer.W.P. No. 10239 of 1985Haja Mohideen, the petitioner in this writ now confined in Central Prison, Trichirapalli, was tried in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Session, East Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam and sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by the Court, by judgment dated 30th December, 1978. He was alleged to have committed...
A.V.D. Raj Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC84
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in WP. No. 2011/79 is the appellant and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein.2. Petitioner-firm had been granted Central Excise Licence in From 14, and it commenced production of the manufacture of aluminium sheets and utensils from January, 1967, onwards. According to the appellant, its factory has absolutely no equipment for manufacture of sheets or plates as end products for being marketed. It had been filing classification lists, and was exempted from central excise duty from the middle of 1967. As it was manufacturing only circles of the description given in serial No.7-B and utensils as described in S. No. 4(b) to (f) of Notification No. 43/75 dated 1.3.1975 which are totally exempt from duty, no duty has been even paid hitherto. On 28.11.75, when it had sent a consignment of 150.800 kgs. of crude aluminium through hand cart covered by delivery note Nos. 272 and 273, it was intercepted by the Central Excise Officials, and later ...
D. Kandaswamy Naicker (Died) and ors. Vs. R. Kumaraswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ166
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 379 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore is the appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal, and his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. Plaintiff and the first defendant are the two respondents herein: (ranking of parties as in trial court).2. The suit was laid for a specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11-1-1978 executed by the first defendant who had remained ex parte. Plaintiff claimed that the suit property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 29,000 and on the different dates, Rs. 18,000 has been paid and endorsements have been made to that effect in the agreement itself, and that when he learnt that first defendant was colluding with second defendant to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, he sent notices to them not to flout the agreement and demanded the first defendant to execute the sale deed, but in spite of such notices, they have colluded and brought into existen...
The District Collector and ors. Vs. S.R. Pitchai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ106
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. The three respondents in W.P. No. 9485 of 1989 are the appellants and the writ petitioner is the sole respondent herein. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition).2. The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent Collector of Tiruchirapalli dated 30.6.1989 and to direct him to renew the lease in his favour for a further period of three years under Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Rules)3. Petitioner claimed that he had taken on lease the sand quarry in Coleroon River in Madhavaperumal Koil Village in Lalgudi Taluk for three faslis (fasli 1396 to 1398) in public auction held on 14.7.1986 by the third respondent and confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 28.7.1986. As the lease was coming to end, on 22.3.1989 he applied to the first respondent under Rule, for renewal for a further period of three years. He also agreed to pay the lease amount for each succeeding year by an increase o...
K.G. Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ130
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These writ petitions are filed to compel the State to hold the Election for respective Societies by issue of mandamus by this Court and in any event not beyond 13.10.1988.2. After the institution of these petitions, Ordinances 3 and 4 having been passed and G.O. Ms. 102 having come into force, and they having been considered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 6189 and W.M.P. No. 12844 of 1989 etc., it is not necessary to issue any direction in the nature asked for, because, while disposing of the batch of writ petitions on 3.8.1989 the Government had placed before this Court G.O. Ms. 523, which catalogues the time schedule for holding of Elections to all the Co-operative Societies in the State. It is consequent to the action taken under the Ordinance, when the State had evolved the time-bound programme for holding of Elections, it is not necessary to order these petitions, as prayed for. Recording the contents of G.O. Ms. 523 as part of this order, these two writ petitions...
G. Kannan Vs. D.P. Samuel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ109
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Claim petitioner is against the dismissal of his claim petition E.A.No. 50 of 1987 on 6.7.1989. The execution petition for attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor for the realisation of the money decree against the judgment-debtor was dismissed on 7.10.1985 for default in not complying with certain returns and on 11.10.1985, the claim petitioner, who is none other than the brother's son of the judgment-debtor, had purchased the said property. There was attachment of the said property prior to the dismissal of the E.P. and on dismissal, the executing Court also expressly raised the said attachment. But, subsequently, on the judgment-creditor filing application to set aside the dismissal order, the E.P. was restored. On restoration, the executing Court also expressed that the attachment effected earlier revived. The Court below also held that the claim petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser and that he was ...
Madras English Baptist Church, Represented by the Minister and Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ176
ORDERSathiadev. J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 1176 of 1981 is the appellant herein and the two respondents therein are the respondents herein. The writ petition was filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to grant permission to the petitioner School for upgradation without insisting on the creation of an endowment. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition).2. Petitioner's Church is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860. It is a religious minority institution, and it started an English Medium School and it became a Matriculation School recognised by University of Madras, and in 1978, Registrar of the University addressed the Director of School Education to include the name of the petitioner's school in the list of Matriculation Schools Under the Government. On 26.11.1977, petitioner had addressed the Director of Higher Secondary Education stating that the School authorities proposed to conduct plus two stage of higher Secondar...
C. Sargunam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commissioner an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ199
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 9325 of 1982 is the appellant. The three respondents therein are the three respondents herein.2. The appellant owns lands of an extent of 3.22 acres in S. No. 22/1B in Viswanathan Village. First respondent issued a section 4 (1) notification for acquisition of the said land in G.O. Ms. No. 58, Transport, dated 12.1.1982. This was done pursuant to a requisition made by Pandian Roadways Corporation by letter dated 7.2.1981 stating that it proposed to construct a depot for maintenance of buses, and therefore, acquisition proceedings will have to be initiated by invoking urgency provisions as there are no structures on the land. Hence the enquiry under section 5-A had been dispensed with by invoking section 17 (4). Section 6 declaration was published in the gazette on 10.2.1982. Notices under sections 9 (1) and 10 were issued on 11.2.1982, and possession came to be taken on 26.2.1982. When the award enquiry stood adjourned to 25.11.1982, W.P. No....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »