Chennai Court March 1989 Judgments
In Re: Jeyaseelan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2559
Janarthanam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-8-1984 of the Court of Session, Madurai North Division at Dindigul in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1984. 2. It arises from these facts : (a) The scene village D. Kamakkapatti is within the limits of Devadanapatti Police Station. The occurrence took place on 28-9-1983 at about 9-30 a.m. One Muthiah (since deceased) is the son of one Karupa Thevar (who died on 4-8-1984 before commencement of the trial). P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 are his brothers. One Raju Thevar is their maternal uncle. Accused 1, 2 and 4 are his children. Accused 3 is their maternal uncle. (b) Raju Thevar borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W. 2 one year prior to the occurrence. Six months thereafter, P.W. 2 advanced a further sum of Rs. 650/- to him for the purchase of five cents of house site in Arasamarathukadu. Raju Thevar neither returned the amount borrowed not sold the house site to P.W. 2, in spite of his persistent demand in this regard. A day prior to...
Tag this Judgment!A-1-ameen Teacher Training Institute Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad190
ORDERS. Mohan Offg., C.J. 1. This case brings to the fore a malaise which is slowly developing in this part of the country.2. In the name of imparting training or giving education, so may mushroom institutions have sprung up. In order to better the prospects of students, in their days of competition unwary and unfortunate students join these institutions either without knowing whether they are genuine institutions or not or whethr they are recognised institutions or not. In this situation, the court is confronted with a problem as to what should be done. Should the Court be harsh and come down upon those persons who start these institutions unmindful of the statutory regulations governing the institutions or should the court mellow down and come to the rescue of these unfortunate students? Betwixt those conflicting interests, a via media could be struck provided there is room for that. With this background, we go on to the facts of this case.3. The writ petition was preferred by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!T. Arul Nadar Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ467
ORDERS. Mohan, Officiating C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of Land Tribunal (District Revenue Officer) Thanjavur, who confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Thanjavur.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision can be shortly stated as follows:The petitioner held an extent of 60.28 crores of agricultural land, equivalent to 43.55 standard acres as on 6.4.1960. Later he acquired an extent of 78.86 ordinary acres on 20.10.1961 by virtue of purchase. Since he is attracted by the provisions of the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, (Act 58 of 1961), the Authorised officer determined his holding as 37.01 standard acres and after allowing the permitted ceiling area of 30 standard acres, the surplus land was fixed at 7.01 standard acres on 6.4.1960. In the same notification, the extent of land purchased by him was also taken into consideration and the notification was issued in the gazette on 28.2.1973 to the effect t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathan Alias Govindarasu and Others Vs. Angamuthu Pillai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad226
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed in E. A. No, 223/84 in E. P. No. 17 of 1989 in O.S. No. 19/68 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry,2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows :--The appellants herein filed the application E.A. No. 223 of 1984 under O. 21, R. 90, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the auction sale held on 16-2-84 by the advocate-commissioner. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 17 of 1980 for appointment of a commissioner for sale of the properties in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 19 of 1968 in which the suit properties were directed to be sold in court auction and the sale proceeds be divided between the parties. Accordingly a commissioner was appointed for the purpose of holding public action. The Commissioner by his notice fixed the date of auction-sale as 16-2-84 and effected publication in "Daily Thanthi". Cuddalore and in "New Times Observer...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathan Alias Govindarasu and ors. Vs. Angamuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ223
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 223 of 1984 in E.P. No. 17 of 1989 in O.S. No. 19 of 1968 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows:The appellants herein filed the application E.A. No. 223 of 1984 under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the auction sale held on 16-2-84 by the Advocate-Commissioner. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 17 of 1980 for appointment of a commissioner for sale of the properties in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 19 of 1968 in which the suit properties were directed to be sold in court auction and the sale proceeds be divided between the parties. Accordingly a commissioner was appointed for the purpose of holding public auction. The Commissioner by his notice fixed the date of auction-sale as 16.2.84 and effected publication in 'Daily Thanthi', Cud...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkataraman Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC120
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No; 702 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (P), Salem. The petitioner along with another is sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code at the instance of the respondent, who had registered Crime No, 104 of 1987 on 19-6-1987 at 5 p.m. on the first information report furnished by one Gnanamani, who was working as a mistry under the petitioner.2. The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Crl. P.C. to have the proceedings as against him in the said calendar case quashed on the ground that even if the entire averments made by the prosecution were to be taken at their face value, no offence is disclosed.3. A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner appears to be a granite exporter possessing an export license. He got in touch with K.V, Estate at Yercaud, which possessed a mining licence, and un...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni Transports and Etc. Vs. Special Dy. Commr. of Labour, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad29; [1990(60)FLR309]
1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench for its decision is whether non-publication of an arbitration agreement as required under Section 10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act and the non-publication of the eventual award as required under Section 17A of the Act is fatal to the award and therefore not enforceable.2. In all these eases, it is common ground that the arbitration agreement itself has not been published as required under S. 10A(3) of the Act. In addition to that it is also the common ease that the eventual awards had also not been published.3. Mr. Vijaynarayanan and Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami appearing in these cases advanced arguments requesting the Court to hold that non-publication of the arbitration agreement and the award being fatal to the award it cannot be enforced,4. On the other hand, Mr. G. Venkalaraman of M/s. Iyer and Dolia and Mr. N.G.R. I'rasad of M/s. Row and Reddy contended that the non-publication of the arbi...
Tag this Judgment!Vellathurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT268(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J.1. This petition is by the convicted 4th accused to condone the delay of 1079 days in filing the appeal. We have persuade the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the brother of the accused and we do not find any convincing explanation for this long period which has elapsed. The petitioner would only say that he was not aware whether an appeal has been preferred by his brother or not and that upon perusing the High Court records he came to know that no appeal was preferred by his brother. Such an explanation cannot be accepted to condone the delay which had occurred in this case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the delay, however long it may be, may be condoned when it does not affect the right of any party. In this connection he has produced before us a decision of the Punjab High Court in The State v. Dittu Ram when Their Lordships have observed as follows :-'While dealing with applications under Section 5 of the Limitat...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Kamalanathan Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad369
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1094/3 of 1981 is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. It will be convenient for us, if we refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition- The petitioner, who was, at the relevant point of time, an Assistant in the services of the first respondent, had a grievance with reference to promotions of personnel as Superintendents Grade II on the ground, they lacked the prescribed educational qualification even for the post of an Assistant, from which promotion has to be made. The prescribed educational qualification for the post of an Assistant, prevailing then, was that the candidate must be a graduate of a recognised university. The petitioner is such a graduate, while the other personnel are not. She came to this Court by way of W.P. No. 4072 of 1975, expressing this grievance of hers. In answer to the grievance of the petitioner G.O.Ms. No. 648, Housing Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni Transports and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ245Mad
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench for its decision is whether non-publication of an arbitration agreement as required under Section 10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act' and the non-publication of the eventual award as required under Section 17A of the Act is fatal to the award and therefore not enforceable. 2. In all these cases; it is common ground that the arbitration agreement itself has not been published as required under Section 10A(3) of the Act. In addition to that, it is also the common case that the eventual awards had also not been published. 3. Mr. Vijayanarayanan and Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami appearing in these cases advanced argument requesting the Court to hold that non-publication of the arbitration agreement and the award being fatal to the award it cannot be enforced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. G. Venkataraman of M/s. Iyer and Dolia and Mr. N. G. R. Prasad of M/s. Row and Reddy contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »