Chennai Court April 1990 Judgments
Kamuthi Madalaichamy Vs. Thangarathina Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad229
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed by Kamuthi Madalaichamy alias Siva-nendal Perumalsamy Koil Private Trust by its Trustee S. Ponnusamy Nadar against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rama-nathapuram at Madurai reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Paramakudi made in H.R.C. O.P. No. 19 of 1980 directing eviction of the respondent herein. Eviction petition was filed by the petitioner herein on three grounds; (1) under S. 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for wilful default in payment of rent at Rs. 80/- per month from November, 1978 up to July, 1980 (2) under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act for wilful denial of title of the landlord and (3) under Sec-tion 14(1)(b) of the Act, requirement for demolition and reconstruction.2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the status of the petitioner that he is the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Kamuthi Madalaichamy Alias Sivanendal Perumalsamy Koil Private Trust T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ140
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by Kamuthi Madalaichamy alias Sivanendal Perumalsamy Koil Private Trust by its Trustee S. Ponnusamy Nadar against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Paramakudi made in H.R.C.O.P. No. 19 of 1980 directing eviction of the respondent herein. Eviction petition was filed by the petitioner herein on three grounds; (1) under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for wilful default in payment of rent at Rs.80/- p.m. from Nov.l978 upto July 1980(2) under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act for wilful denial of title of the landlord and (3) under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, requirement for demolition and reconstruction.2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the status of the petitioner that he is the landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Civil Construction Company Vs. the Government of India, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad119; (1992)IMLJ93
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing on Thursday the 8th, Friday the 16th Wednesday the 21st days of February, 1990. Thursday the 8th day and Friday the 9th day of March 1990 upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of this Court dated 7-1-88, 9-2-88, 14-4-88 and made in W. P. Nos. 13234/87, 916 and 4174 of 1988 and the respective counfer-affidavits and common reply affidavit filed thereon and the records relating to the order in 1. C2/RC/19/86 dated 30-11-86 on the file of the 2nd respondent 2. ED/(C)/DB/F.59-1/88 dated 30-11-88 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 2. E(C) 59/i)88-EE/P1 dated 5-2-88 on the file of the second respondent respectively comprised in return of the 1st and 2nd respondents in W.P. No. 13234/87, and the 1st respondent in W.P. Nos. 916 and 4174/88 to the writs made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Govindaswaminathan for M/s. N. S. Sivam, G. Anbumani and R. Ganesan Advocate for ...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Civil Construction Company Represented by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ470
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 13234 of 1987 is filed by the petitioner company praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents culminated in the report of the second respondent therein dated 30.11.1986 and quash the observation. 'While no action is recommended against A-17 firm, the Ministry of Shipping may be advised to recommend banning of business dealings with the firm by the Ports' made in the said report.2. Writ Petition No. 916 of 1988 is filed by the petitioner company praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents culminated in Letter ED/(C)/DB/ F.59-1/88 dated 30th January 1988 issued by the second respondent therein and quash the same and direct the respondents to issue Work Order to the petitioner company for Balance Dredging of Approach Channel between 525 to 1450 metres minus 10-98 metres in the Tuticorin Port Trust.3. Writ Petition No. 6174 of 1988 is filed by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Sacred Heart Convent High School, Panruti, South Arcot Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR196]
1. The Second Respondent was at Physical Education Teacher in the school in the Danish Mission Compound, Panruti run by the Congregation of Carnelite Sisters of St. Theresa of Ernakulam, the writ petitioner herein. Her services were terminated. She raised an industrial dispute invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petitioner duly opposed the attempt to raise an Industrial Dispute contending that the institution is a minority institution an the teacher will not be a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the first respondent by G.O. Ms. No. 1303, Labour and Employment, dated June 19, 1981 made a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras. The dispute referred was 'Whether the non-employment of Selvi Ruby Shantha David is justified; if not, to what relief she is entitled, to compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it can be computed.' The ref...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer Tiruppur Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. the Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ505
ORDERJ. Kanakaraj, J.1. The second respondent in the W.P.No. 5942 of 1981 and the second respondent in W.P.No. 5943 of 1981 were working in the Civil Supplies Section of the Tiruppur Co-operative Sale Society Limited, the petitioner herein. Certain allegations were made against them by the writ petitioner. After purporting to hold an enquiry, the petitioner came to the conclusion that the second respondent in each of the above cases was guilty of misconduct and accordingly dismissed them from service by order dated 4-10-1978. The second respondent in each of the above cases filed appeals to the Special Officer under by-law No. 13(1) on 11-10-1978. The Special Officer rightly returned the appeals on the ground that he cannot act as an appellate authority because he had himself passed the order of dismissal. The second respondent in each of the cases therefore filed appeals to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar rejected the appeals. It is under these circu...
Tag this Judgment!T. Srinivasan Vs. T. Varalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC20
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These Appeals coming on for hearing on Thursday the 5th Wednesday the 11th and Thursday the 19th day of April, 1990 in the presence of the respective Advocates, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following Judgment:2. These two appeals by the husband arose out of a common judgment passed by the VIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A.S. No. 49 of 1981 and CM.A. No. 33 of 1981.3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows : The respondent-wife filed the suit in O.S. No. 9654 of 1977 before the V Assistant Judge for separate maintenance against the appellant. According to her, their marriage took place on 31-1-1975 at Madras and the consummation of the marriage took place on 1-2-1975. The appellant took her to his parents' house after 2 or 3 days in respondent's place. Thereafter he started teasing her alleging insufficiency of gifts by her parents and also the presenc...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Tandon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Chief Controller of Imports a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)LC419(Madras)
ORDERS.R. Halingam, J.1. By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up today for final disposal.2. That petitioner is an actual user of synthetic rags with an office at Madras. He has plans to start a spinning unit at Tuticorin. For his spinning unit, the raw material is synthetic and woollen rags which may be imported under Open General Licence.3. The Import and Export Policy 1988-91, in paragraph 25(1) states that the import of woollen rags/shoddy wool/synthetic rags will be allowed only when they are imported in completely pre-mutilated condition. Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 25 states that the mutilation must conform to the requirements specified by the customs authorities in the notification. According to the petitioner, he has been carrying on the business of spinning unit the raw material synthetic rags, imported by him in a mutilated condition and he was importing them through Tuticorin & Madras Ports.4. While so by an amendment made on 28.4.1989 paragraph 25 wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds Vs. Kamaraj Texti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ159
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These five Writ Appeals were earlier heard by a Bench Of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) was a party and by order dated 20th February, 1986, the following question was formulated and the papers were directed to be placed before our Lord the Chief Justice for a reference to a larger bench for decision on the said question:Can the provisions of the Act be enforced when the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act is pending adjudication before the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act? The relevant facts and circumstances of the cases and how the question got referred to a larger Bench, are set out in detail in the earlier order dated 20th February, 1986. The said order shall stand annexed to this judgment as Annexure A.2. The matters were referred to a Full Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, and the Full Bench, by order dated 6.3.1989, answered the questions as follows:During the pendency of the adjudication p...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Document Writers' Association represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ134
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The common question to be considered in these petitions is whether the amendment, of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules, 1971, introduced by G.O. Ms. No.603, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 4.8.1989 is valid.2. Under Section 52 of the Indian Registration Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1966, where any document of a specific class is admitted to registration, a true copy thereof shall, without unnecessary delay, be filed in the appropriate book according, to the order of its admission. Sub-section (3) of the said Section authorises the State Government to specify from time to time by rules the classes of documents in respect of which true copies shall be filed in the appropriate book as aforesaid. Under Sub-section (4), a true copy shall be neatly handwritten, printed, typewritten, lithographed or otherwise prepared in accordance with such rules as may be made in that behalf. By the same Act 21 of 1966, Section 89...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »