Chennai Court January 1990 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.
R. Saraswathi and anr. Vs. J.A. Jafrulla and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ78
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the judgment-debtors, who are respondents 4 and 5 in EA. No. 1849 of 1986 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore, which was filed by the assignee of the decree from the decree-holder, praying for recognition of the said assignment. Against the Order dated 10-7-1987 in the said EA., recognising the said assignment, this revision has been filed. One of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that such an execution application for mere recognition of the said assignment of the decree is not maintainable under Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C.. but that only a regular execution petition should have been filed. The said Counsel contended that even the earlier execution petition, viz, E.P. No. 662 of 1980 filed by the original assignor decree-holder was dismissed on 29-1-1987 and that hence the Court below should not have passed the impugned order dated 10-7-1987 subsequent to the dismissal of the said ex...
T.M. Ramalingam Vs. the Chairman, Madras Metropolitan Development Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ364
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus calling for records of respondents 1 and 2 concerning the allotment to petitioner, directing the first respondent to re-fix the value of the house allotted to the petitioner at Rs. 18,000, to direct the first respondent to carry out all the necessary repairs forthwith and to stay further collection by the first respondent from the petitioner.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner applied for allotment of Low Income Group (LIG) ready built house (RBH) Type III at Rs. 33,000. According to the petitioner, the first respondent arbitrarily increased the cost to Rs. 36,700 in his letter No. AL2/C-122/81 dated 3.3.1983 and consequently increased the monthly instalments as stated therein. The petitioner is a person belonging to a weaker section of the society and he had no choice except to accept the price increase, althou...
R. Narasimhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ55
S. Nainar Sundram, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P. No. 4079 of 1982. The respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. We shall refer to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the Writ Petition. The petitioner, who was working as a Travelling Ticket Examiner, at the relevant point of time was visited with an order of compulsory retirement from service under paragraph 2(2) of Section I of Railway Ministry's Letter dated E-48 CPC/208 dated 8.7.1950 and the said order dated 14.5.1982 shall hereinafter be referred to as the impugned order. The body of the impugned order reads as follows:Whereas the Sr. DCS is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Para 2 (2) of Section 1 of Railway Ministry's letter No. E.47 CPC/208 dated 8.7.1950, the Sr. DCS hereby retires Shri R. Narasimhan S. No. 13205, T.T.E., with immediate effect, he having already completed 30 years of service qu...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras Vs. A. Babu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC313; 1990ACJ1003; AIR1990Mad305
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. The second respondent Insurance Company, in O.P.No. 175 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Madras is theappellant herein. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows : The first respondent herein who is the owner of the mot or cycle TMC 4937 drove the said vehicle rashly and knocked down the cyclist, deceased Gandhi, on 12-3-1979 at about 4.30p.m. As a result of the injuries sustained by the said Gandhi, he dies later at the hospital on 7-5-1979. The widow and children of the deceased respondents 2 to 4 herein filed O.P. Xo. 175 of 1980 against the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, the firsrt respondent herein, and the Insurance Company, the appellant. The contention of the appellant in the counter filed betore the Claims Tribunal was that the first respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that he was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced and hence the appellant was n...
N. Palaniappan Vs. G. Pandurangan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Mad327
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of the rent control E.A. No. 45 of 1981 (in E.P. No. 25 of 1981) for removal of the obstruction. The main execution petition is for execution of the eviction order obtained in the rent control proceeding against two tenants, after the said eviction order has been confirmed by the superior Court. Since there was obstruction by the respondent to the delivery warrant ordered by the execution Court, the landlord-petitioner filed the above said E.A. for removal of obstruction. But the said E.A. was dismissed and the subsequent appeal R.C.A. No. 56 of 1982 on the file of Sub-Court, Cuddalore was also dismissed and hence he has filed this Civil Revision Petition.2. The ground, on which both the Courts below dismissed the execution application is that the respondent herein is independently in possession of the building in question for a long time even before the petitioner filed R.C.O. No. 29 of 1977 and he is not claiming title ...
K.R. Srinathi Vs. H. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Mad330
1. This is a transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Code') for transfer of the proceedings in M.O.P. No. 475 of 1989 on the file of the Family Court, Madras to the file of District Court or Subordinate Court at Coimbatore for disposal according to law solely on the ground of convenience.2. The respondent-husband initiated the proceedings before the Family Court, Madras for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner-wife entered appearance and resisted the proceedings for divorce.3. The respondent-husband opposed the transfer petition on twin grounds, viz.,(1) Section 24 of the Code is inapplicable on the face of the sanguine and salutary provisions adumbrated in S. 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'); and(2) Even otherwise, the convenience as a ground for transfer should have to be construed as convenience of both the parties and not the convenience of one of the parties alone to the proceedings and...
The Management of Hackbridge Hewittic and Easun Limited. Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ258
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in C.P. No. 428 of 1984 and quash the order of the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras dated 31.12.1985 in C.P. No. 428 of 1984 under Section 33-C (2) read with Section 33-C (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The facts leading to the writ petition are:-The petitioner herein owns two factories, one at Tiruvottiyur and another at Ernavur. The factory at Ernavur was closed with effect from 30.11.1976. The question whether the said act of the petitioner Management herein, with regard to the factory at Ernavur, was a closure or only a lockout was the subject matter in I.D. No. 16 of 1977 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The said dispute was referred only at the instance of the Union, namely, Hackbridge-Hewittic & Easun Employees' Union, Tiruvottiyur, Madras. 19. Protesting against the closure of the said factory, the Workmen employed at Tiruvottiyur factory including ...
V. Vijayamelu (Minor) Represented by Her Father and Natural Guardian M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ393
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in W.P.No. 8142 of 1987 is the appellant herein and the respondents therein are the two respondents herein.2. The relief claimed in the writ petition is for issue of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the First Year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu. She belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu. She applied in July, 1987 for a seat in M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1987-88 and she secured 170.8 marks out of 250 marks which works out to 68.32% but yet, she was not selected even though a reservation of 18% of Medical seats was made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST). Though second respondent is obliged in law to reserve a separate quota of seats for ST, by fixing 18% of seats together for SC/ST, the Scheduled Tribes do not get seats in Medical Colleges in proportion to t...
V. Ramasamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ146
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 1565 of 1980. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein and the respondents herein were respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience we shall refer the parties by their nomenclature assigned to them in the writ petition. On 21.7.1979, the first-respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 1298, Education, dated 21.7.1979, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Government order, under which 200 additional posts of B.T. Grade Headmasters were sanctioned for Middle Schools (Higher Elementary Schools) in the State. The said Government orders in the typed-sets of papers run as follows:G.O.Ms.No. 1298, Education, dated 21.7,1979. Read:1. G.O.Ms.No. 1063, Education, dated 11.5.61.2. G.O.Ms.No. 1027, Education, dated 24.5.78.3. Government Memorandum No. 73067/L1/76-3, Education dated 26.12.1978.4. From the Director of School Education No. l9932/B7/78, dated 25.9....
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT32(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 26-11-1981 and made herein, and the counter filed herein and the records of the respondent relating to the order in 161/1981 dated 25-3-1981 on the file of the 1st respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the Court made the following order :-The petitioner manufactures vehicles known as Dumpers. Besides the chassis, it consists of (1) Special cabin; (2) Tipping gear; and (3) Steel body. The tipping gear lowers and raises the steel body to perform the operation of dumping. 2. The petitioner claimed that it is bound to pay excise duty only on the value of the chassis and that portion of the vehi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »