Chennai Court July 1989 Judgments
Kasturi Radha Krishnan Vs. the Hon'ble President of India, Govt. of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad216
ORDER1. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying for the issuance of a writ mandamus to direct the Hon'ble President of India, 1st respondent herein to dismiss the 3rd respondent, Governor of Tamil Nadu for violation of constitutional provisions pertaining to the office of Governorship.2. The Office raised a question with regard to maintainability and it has been posted before me for the purpose of deciding the maintainability.3. Mr. S. K. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that a newspaper report appeared in Indian Express recently on 23rd July, 1989 stating that 'Tamil Nadu Governor P.C. Alexander wants to enter active politics. He has conveyed this to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.' This newspaper report is published under the caption 'Alexander to contest LS polls'. In the same report, it is stated that 'When Raj Bhavan was contacted for Dr. Alexander's reaction, his Secretary R. Santhanam said that the Governor would not comment on his reported entry into act...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Vs. Station House Officer Peralam Crime Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ321
ORDERT.S. Arunachatam, J.1. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 411, I.P.C., by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai. The case has been taken on file as C.C. No. 762 of 1984. After the supply of the records contemplated under Section 173, Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed an application before the trial Magistrate seeking discharge on the ground that the entire material placed before the Court did not disclose an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The trial Magistrate heard both the parties and dismissed the application. The order of the learned Magistrate refusing to act, holding in favour of the petitioner under Section 239, Cr.P.C., is challenged in this revision.2. Let us now look into the facts which led to this prosecution: It appears that in Cr.No. 272 of 1982 on the file of Peralam police station one Munusami, son of Ponnusami, was indicated as an accused for having committed theft of the jewellary belonging to one Farida Bibi...
Tag this Judgment!The Correspondent, the Americal Advent Mission School Vs. J. Jeevanand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ207
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Shanmukham J., in Appeal No. 23 of 1979. That Appeal, in its turn, was directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 619 of 1970, on the file or the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The Original respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The Original respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit. We propose to refer to the parties as per their array in the suit. The plaintiff wanted a declaration that the order of dismissal passed against him from the service of the defendant on 5.6.1967 is void and of no effect and for consequential direction that the plaintiff should be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages. In view of the limited scope of the points that have come up for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, we do not propose to traverse upon the entire...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Brothers and ors. Vs. Kamaladevi Chandak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ469
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. By my order dated December 7,1988, I called a finding from the Rent Controller on the question whether the respondent herein require the portions in the. occupations of the revision petitioner bona fide for the purpose of their business. I permitted the parties to let in evidence before the Rent Controller and directed the latter to consider the evidence on record and submit a finding. In the said order, I had considered some of the contentions urged by the revision petitioners and gave my decision thereon. First I rejected the argument that the Appellate Authority was in error in receiving additional evidence produced before him and held that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was proper and au thorised by law. Secondly, the contention that the application ought to have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and it was not maintainable as it was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was nega...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sakthivel Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ124
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 10389 of 1985 is the appellant and the respondent therein is the respondent herein. He filed the writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to complete the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police by holding written test pursuant to his order in C.NoAl/6771/81, dt. 8-9-1981.2. He claims that respondent called for application for direct recruitment of Non Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1981, and he was one of the applicants. He appeared for physical efficiency test on 3-9-1981 and came out successful with 11 stars. By letter dt. 8-9-1981, he was directed to attend the written test to be held on 19-9-1981. Eventhough he was prepared to appear for the written test, he received a letter on 15-9-1981 stating as follows:Written test to be held on 19-9-1981 for selection of S.Is. is postponed. Fresh date will be intimated later.Thereafter, the respondent had failed and neglected to conduct the written test and now fresh appli...
Tag this Judgment!Poomani Vs. TuticorIn thermal Power Project
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ794; AIR1990Mad372
1. Widow of the victim of a road accident, whose application for compensation had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the grounds that the vehicle involved viz. a mechanically propelled crane, is not a motor vehicle and also that the negligence of the driver of the crane had not been established, has filed this appeal challenging the above two findings.2. The appellant filed the claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 162 of 1980 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Thirunelveli, on the averments that her husband Gnanamani Nadar on 2-4-1980 at 4.30 p.m., while he was walking along the Tuticorin-Thiruchendur Road, was hit by C. Crane No. 11 belonging to the respondent, being driven in a negligent manner, sustained serious injuries and suc-cumbled to the same soon after. Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was prayed for.3. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations of rash and negligent ...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Vs. Kamalambal and 8 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC574
Sathiadev, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs in O.S. No. 3116 of 1979 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Defendants are the respondents herein.2. The suit was filed by appellants/plaintiffs (ranking of parties as in suit) for recovery of possession of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting rents from tenants, and to pay a sum of Rs. 4,200 which had been unauthorisedly collected, that too by first defendant. 3. In the plaint it is claimed as follows : Plaintiff is the lawfully wedded wife of one Raju Mudaliar, and their marriage took place on 23-8-1934, and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the children born to them'. On 1-5-1949 he marriage the first defendant as his second wife by going through some form of married in a temple at Tiruvanmiyur. The ceremonies were not in accord with Hindu rites and customs. At a time when a second marriage was prohibited under the provisions of Hindu Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act (Madras Act 6 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Vs. Kamalambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ307
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs in O.S. No.3116 of 1979 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Defendants are the respondents herein.2. The suit was filed by appellants/plaintiffs (ranking of parties as in suit) for recovery of possession of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting rents from tenants, and to pay a sum of Rs.4,200 which had been unauthorisedly collected, that too by first defendant.3. In the plaint it is claimed as follows: Plaintiff is the lawfully wedded wife of one Raju Mudaliar, and their marriage took place on 23.8.1934, and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the children born to them. On 1.5.1949 he married the first defendant as his second wife by going through some form of marriage in a temple at Tiruvanmiyur. The ceremonies were not in accord with Hindu rites and customs. At the time when a second marriage was prohibited under the provisions of Hindu Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act (Madras Act 6 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. V.S.R. Kumaresan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ873; AIR1991Mad3
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The Insurance Company which was the second respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vellore, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 18 of 1980, is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The first respondent herein was the claimant before the Tribunal. The second respondent was the owner of thevehicle, namely, a stage carriage bus which was involved in the accident. The second respondent dies pending this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and his legal representative have been brought on record. The claimant was inside the bus at the time of the accident. He was not a passenger, being carried in the bus for hire or reward at the time of the accident. It has been found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The bus had undergone repair works at the time of the accident was on the road for test driving in order to find out whether the defects had been properly rectified. In the accident, the claimant sust...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. V.S.R. Kumaresan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ120
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The insurance Company which was the second - respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vellore, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 18 of 1980, is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The first respondent herein was the claimant before the Tribunal. The second-respondent was the owner of the vehicle, namely, a stage carriage bus which was involved in the accident. The second respondent died pending this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The claimant was inside the bus at the time of the accident. He was not a passenger/being carried in the bus for hire or reward at the time of the accident. It has been found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The bus had undergone repair works and at the time of the accident was on the road for test driving in order to find out whether the defects had been properly rectified. In the accident, the claimant su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »