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.
N. Vijayakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ170
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 8506 of 1989 is the appellant and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein. 2. The writ petition was filed to quash the order by which third respondent has been temporarily posted as a Librarian in the High Court, Madras and to direct the petitioner to be posted in her place. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he states that he entered service in the High Court as Junior Assistant in 1978, and at that time he had acquired a B.A. Degree, and thereafter he acquired Degrees in M.A. and B.L. He joined the one year course in Madras University for Bachelor of Library and Information Science in 1987. He saw an advertisement in Dinamani dated 1.10.85 about a vacancy existing for the post of Librarian in the High Court, and filed an application on 15.6.1987, and thereafter furnished his entire bio-data on 30.12.1987. In spite of himself possessing M.A., B.L., and B.L.I.S., Degrees, and having gained experience by workin...
M. Easwaramoorthy and ors. Vs. C. Natesa Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ400
Bellie, J.1. The defendants against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the trial Court (first Additional Subordinate Judge Erode) and confirmed by the first appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Erode) are the appellants in this second appeal.2. The only point that has been raised here is that the notice of termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff is not valid in law and therefore the suit filed on the basis of that termination notice is not maintainable and therefore the decree passed is not sustainable. It is argued that the subject matter of lease is a rice mill and therefore the lease was for manufacturing purposes and that being the case, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year and it is terminable by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy but Exhibit A.2 notice terminating the tenancy given in this case is not such a notice, and it has been given treating the tenan...
Raju Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ951
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The accused who has been convicted for an offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- which conviction was confirmed in appeal with a modification in the sentence to imprisonment for period of one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- has filed the present revision challenging the conviction and sentence.2. The accused was convicted for the above offence on the allegation that on 30.6.1983 at 4.55 p.m., at Thirupapuliyur, Lawrence Road, he drove bus No. TNF 9633 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of Ramesh aged 15 years who was riding as a pillion rider on a bicycle.3. The prosecution case was that the deceased was studying in a school at Cud-dalore, staying with PW 1 who was a B.A. III year student. On the date of occurrence, PW 1 took the deceased on the carrier of his bicycle and was returning home from school when the chappals worn by the decea...
The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kallalagar Devasthanam Alagar Koil V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ97a
Bellie, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the decree granted by the first appellate Court is sustainable in law. The first defendant Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kallalagar Devasthanam, Alagar Koil, Madurai is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to the suit mandapam and they are also entitled to possession of the appurtenant 42 cents and to perform mandagapadi every year during Chitra festival. As a consequential relief they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from fencing around the Mandapam and the appurtenant land and for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent-Executive Officer to take the Lord Sri Kallalagar to the Mandapam during every Chitra festival.3. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to the Mandapam or possession of the appurtenant land and contended that the mandapam and the appurtenant land has been in possession and use of the Devasthanam and t...
P.L. Vellaichamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ874; (1994)IIILLJ514Mad
ORDERSriniyasan, J.1. I am disposing of the main writ petition itself, as it is not maintainable. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated as follows:-'The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 25.11.1988 also suffers from patent illegality and error apparent on the face of the order itself. Therefore the remedy open to me is to approach this Hon'ble Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it would be of onerous duty to me if I have to seek my remedy in any other forum and in any other Court'.The impugned order dated 25.11.1988 passed by the second respondent has upheld the claim of the third respondent herein for payment of compensation as the dependent of the deceased worker. An appeal lies against the said order under Section 30(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The affidavit of the petitioner does not refer to the existence of the statutory remedy by way of appeal; nor does it explain as to why that remedy was ...
Southern Springs and Wire Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT335(Mad)
S. Ramalingam, J.1. By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner claims to be a registered small scale industry manufacturing springs and coils out of raw materials supplied by the 3rd respondent for ultimate use in Government of India projects. It slates that as per the terms of the agreement between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, goods manufactured by the petitioner will have to conform to the prescribed standards and delivery or clearance from the factory would be made only after inspection by the Officers of the 3rd respondent and not before.3. On 8-9-1989, the Officers of the 1st and 2nd respondents made an inspection of the petitioner's factory premises and they seized goods which were in the factory apparently on the ground that it has not been entered in R.G. 1 register. The petitioner herein filed W.P. 12612 of 1989 in this Court for quashing the proceedings culminating in the preparation of the mahazar dated 8-9-1989...
R. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. Padmavathy Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ179
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by (sic) obstructor in execution, is against the order (sic) dismissal dated 11.4.1989 in E.A. No. 135 of 1987 in E.P. No. 22 of 1987 in O.S. No. 123 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Court Pattukottai.2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff-decree holder. When the decree for possession of the suit house, dated 17.3.1987 was sought to be executed on 7.9.1987, the petitioner obstructed and gave obstruction memo to the bailiff, but since the latter refused to receive the same, the petitioner filed the abovesaid E.A. under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on or about 14.9.1987 for reception of the said obstruction memo, on the ground that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property under a will and that the judgment-debtor had no right over the same. The decree holder-respondent resisted the said E.A. stating that the appellant had no right over the said property. She filed her counter and the execution court ...
Nepco Schlenk Engineering College Vs. the President, Keriseri Panchaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ381
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against two notices issued by the first respondent on 20th April, 1989. By one notice, the petitioner was called upon to produce a certificate of valuation relating to the two hostels and one canteen for the purpose of determining the property tax for the year 1989-90. By the other notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 64,050 being the property tax and library cess for the two hostels and the canteen for the year 1989-90. By the latter notice, which is really a demand for payment of tax, the value of the two hostels has been fixed at Rs. 60,00,000 and the canteen has been valued at Rs. 1,00,000.2. It is rather perplexing that on the same day, one notice calls upon the petitioner to produce a valuation certificate for the purpose of determining the value of the property for assessment of tax, and another notice fixes the value and demands the petitioner to pay the tax on the basis thereof, Obviously, all is not' w...
S.V. Angappan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ273Mad
ORDER1. The writ petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 19, Administrative Branch, dated 5th March, 1985 of 5 the first respondent and also B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 21, Administrative Branch, dated 11th February, 1985 and quash the order of the first respondent dated 5th March, 1985 and to reinstate the petitioner back into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The facts are briefly as follows :- The petitioner was employed as Special Grade Accountant in the respondent Board. He did not attend office since September 1972 except for a small spell of sevens days in the year 1981. Leave was sanctioned to the petitioner only upon 31st March, 1983. The petitioner did not attended office after 1st April, 1983 and applied for extension of leave. Since the petitioner was not attending the office of the respondent Board and there were no special circumstances to grant the leave asked for b...
Gokuldas Vs. Appandanatha Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ319
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. The judgment-debtor has filed this civil revision petition against the order of arrest dated 17.3.1989 in E.P.No. 45 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tindivanam. Out of the total decree amount of about Rs. 21,000, the judgment-debtor has been paying certain amounts, on several occasions, which I am told, in all comes to about Rs. 12,500 However, the court below has ordered arrest on 17.3.1989 by simply saying that 'No substantial payment. 'Arrest J.D.'2. I find from the certified copy of the above E.P. and the orders passed thereon on several days, culminating in the above said order dated 17.3.1989 that in the said E.P. for arrest and detention of the petitioner judgment-debtor herein in the Civil Prison pursuant to the notice, ordered, he appeared through Counsel and he was making several payments to the extent of Rs. 12,500, and that finally on the ground that no substantial payment was made, arrest was ordered on 17.3.1989, as stated above, I think the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »