Chennai Court October 1990 Judgments
N.L. Adhinarayanan Vs. D. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)34MLJ1
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In this revision petition the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord within the meaning of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(l) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has not paid the rents at the rate of Rs. 105 per month from April, 1985 till July, 1985. Thus the question arose before the Controller, who heard the petition for eviction, as to whether the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of the rents for the period from April, 1985 to July, 1985. The tenant sent by a money order the rents for the period from April, 1985 to August, 1985, on 23.9.1985 and that was obviously after the filing of the petition and the landlord declined to receive the money order. The tenant would contest by stating that the landlord used to receive once in three months o...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswamy and anr. Vs. T.K. Ayyanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)486MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Munsif, Mettur, in I.A.No. 1836 of 1983. The petition was taken out by the 1st respondent herein to dismiss the suit as it was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif. After hearing the parties, the District Munsif passed an order on 25.6.1984 holding that the suit sjiould be dismissed and allowed the petition. Actually, the suit was not dismissed. But the learned District Munsif returned the plaint to the plaintiffs on the next day for presentation before the proper court.2. It is now stated that the plaint was presented in the Sub Court, Sankari and it is ready for trial.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to return the plaint on the basis of the evidence recorded in the trial. I do not agree with the petitioners. The District Munsif has found that P. W. 1 has admitted the value of the suit claim to be worth Rs. 82,300. ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arumughathan Vs. S. Muthusami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ538
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the ninth defendant in O.S. No. 223 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, challenging the decree and judgment passed in the above suit for permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession.2. The case of respondents 1 to 3 plaintiffs 2 to 4 as disclosed from the plaint can be briefly stated as follows:The subject matter of this appeal is only in respect of item 42 of the plaint A Schedule properties, to an extent of 4.74 acres. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased first plaintiff and one Chinnama Naidu.who is the father of defendants 1 to 3, are brothers. The said Chinnama Naidu, who was the elder brother died on 1.1.1963 and they constituted a joint Hindu family. The properties described in A Schedule, including item 42, were comprised of the properties acquired by the deceased first plaintiff and the deceased Chinnama Naidu. The deceased first plaintiff is entitled to half share...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karuppayi and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1852
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of one and the same transactions, and the questions involved in the petition are the same. Hence, by consent of both the parties, they were disposed of by a common order.2. W.P. No. 76 of 1990 is filed by one Karuppayee wife of the detenu M. Munisamy son of Muthu Maniar, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 12-12-1989 passed against the said M. Munisami and set the said M. Munisami at liberty.3. W.P. No. 324 of 1990 is filed by one Tamil Chelvi, wife of K. Munisami, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order dated 12-12-1989 passed against her husband and set him at liberty.4. Both the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(1)(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rmk.L. Kannan @ Ramakrishnan Vs. L.Rmk. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)41MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In this civil revision petition, a question is raised by the petitioner that the parties to the suit who are appointed as Receivers are not entitled to claim remuneration for functioning as such. No doubt, the order appointing them as Receivers did not fix any remuneration but it is not axiomatic that a party-Receiver is n5t entitled to any remuneration under any circumstances.2. In England, a party to a proceeding appointed as receiver is not generally entitled to remuneration without the consent of the other parties. In Halsbury's Laws of England, IV Edition, Volume 39, at page 931, the law is stated thus:Salary Generally Allowed : A receiver appointed by the Court is allowed such proper remuneration, if any, as the court may fix, but his right is limited to the assets and in case of deficiency cannot be enforced against the plaintiff or other parties personally. A trustee who is appointed receiver is not generally entitled to remuneration, but even a trustee-re...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurangan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1694
K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner before Court and set him at liberty. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Goondas, Immeral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Commissioner of police, Madras City, the second respondent, passed the impugned order. The detenu came to the adverse notice as a goonda in view of 15 adverse cases referred to in the preamble to the grounds of 'detention and has been detained on the ground case dated 17-I-1990. Though several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Achi and ors. Vs. the Acquisition Officer-cum-revenue Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)206MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. An extent of land measuring 1 acre and 40 cents in T.S. No. 2756/1-B in South Sethi Vattam, Thiruvarur, is sought to be acquired by the respondent for the construction of a Police Station and Circle Office for the Inspector of Police at Thiruvarur. Thesaid land jointly belongs to TmLLakshmi Achi (widow of Chinna Meenakshisundaram Chettiar), Manickam Chettiar and Peria Meenakshisundaram Chettiar who are respectively the petitioners in the above writ petitions. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it is stated that the very same land was originally sought to be acquired for a Harijan Welfare Scheme but on objections, the proposal was dropped. Again, acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land for the Cholan Roadways Corporation and this proposal was not also proceeded with. Now again, the land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of a Police Station. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Anakapallee Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ452
Bellie, J.1. The defendant-Anakapallee Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society is the appellant. A suit for recovery of Rs. 40,500 as damages has been decreed.2. The suit was Sled on the allegations that the plaintiff is a licensed wholesale dealer in free sale sugar carrying on business at Madras. As per law some quantity of sugar produced is allowed for free sale at the prices available in the market. The plaintiff offered to purchase free sale sugar available for release in December, 1975 from the defendant. The plaintiff sent his offer by telegram Ex. A-1 dated 10.12.1975, to purchase at Rs. 255 per bag. The defendant by its telegram Ex. A-2 dated 11.12.1975, offered to supply 5 G.C. Wagons of Grade D. 29/74-75 Sugar at Rs. 256 per bag (not Rs. 255 offered by the plaintiff) plus duty F.O.R. Anakapallee and asked the plaintiff to reply for confirmation. The plaintiff by its telegram Ex. A-4 dated 11.12.1975 despatched at 4.00 P.M. that day to the defendant accepted and conf...
Tag this Judgment!Santha Engg. Industrials Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT376(Mad)
1. Though the classification list filed by the petitioners here accepted, at the time of clearance, the respondent directed the petitioners to file a revised classification list for clearance. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the present writ petitions have been filed praying for issue of a certiorari to quash the revised order dated 7-8-1990 issued by the respondent - Superintendent of Central Excise, Coimbatore. 2. Mr. K. Jayachandran, appearing on behalf of the respondent takes notice. Since the classification lists already filed by the petitioners had already been accepted by the respondent, he cannot direct the petitioners to file revised classification lists on the absence of proceedings initiated for cancellation of the earlier sanction granted for the classification lists. In view of the same, the impugned orders are quashed. However, it is open to the respondent or any other higher authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the order of acceptance of the classif...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan Vs. Prakalanayaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ67
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S. No. 184 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for a declaration that he is a tenant entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. That suit was filed on 1.7.1974. The trial Court granted a decree only for declaration but rejected the prayer for injunction. That judgment was rendered on 17.9.1980. While there was no appeal by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the said judgment in the District Court, Madurai North and it was taken on file as A.S. No. 9 of 1982. The plaintiff in the meanwhile filed a suit O.S. No. 836 of 1980 for recovery of possession and damages. The appeal referred to above was dismissed by the District Court and defendants 1 and 2 preferred Second Appeal No. 839 of 1982 in this Court. By judgment dated 6.3.1987, this Court allowed the appeal and re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »