Chennai Court April 1990 Judgments
Selvarasu Vs. K.A. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ148
Bellie, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. He is admittedly the lessee in the suit properties consisting of 1 acre of land and 2 acre 39 cents of cocoanut thope in which the plaintiffs have 1/5 share, on an annual rent of Rs.1,000/-. The plaintiffs' case is that the rent is too low compared to the income from the properties especially considering the 290 cocoanut trees and therefore the rent must be increased to Rs.2,900/- per annum for the cocoanut trees and Rs.2,000/- for the 1.00 acre of nanja land. Their further case is that for several years the defendant has not paid the rent and they are claiming arrears for three years past either as rent if he is a tenant or damage if he is not a tenant, and the plaintiffs share comes to Rs.980/- per year. As stated above it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are owners/ sharers in respect of the suit land and thope. It is also not in dispute that both for the land and the thope the rent fixed was Rs. 1,000/- per ann...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsavalli and Etc. Vs. the Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Mad350
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. Thesethree writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and they do arise out of a common order in three different writ petitions. The appellants herein were the petitioners in the three writ petitions. The appellants challenged the notice given to them under S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905, hereinafter referred to as the Act for their eviction from the lands occupied by them. The main contention put forth by the appellants was that theyhad not been served with a prior notice as laid down by S. 7 of the Act, and this vitiates the entire proceedings. The learned single Judge who dealt with the writ petitions, ordered notice of action, and on service of such notice of motion, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent stated that notices were issued under S. 7 of the Act to the appellants. The learned single Judge perused the records produced before him by the learned Government Advocate representing the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ586
S.T. Ramalingam, J. 1. Venugopal, a relative of the detenu R. Balakrishnan has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for records of the respondent in SR. 1/899-5/89, dt. 27-7-89 and to set him at liberty, under the following circumstances. 2. On 26-5-1989 at 1 a.m. the detenu Balakrishnan along with his wife Sushila arrived at Bombay airport and they reached the domestic terminal at Bombay air port at 6-30 a.m. and left for Bangalore by flight. They left Bangalore by 10 a.m. by bus and reached their native place via Tiruchi. While they were alighting at the Peramangalam bus stop from the bus, they were intercepted by the officers of the Customs Division, Tiruchi. They had three bags and since there was no facility to examine them at the bus stop, they were taken to the house of the detenu along with the baggages and the baggages were examined in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Durga Iron Work ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1990
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC602
ORDER1. These are Applications for leave to institute suits on the original side of this Court. The plaintiffs in the proposed suits are the applicants. The proposed suits are for recovery of money by enforcement of equitable mortgages, created by deposits of title deeds within the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court. The prayers include sale of the immovable properties covered by such deposits of title deeds, in satisfaction of the money claims. But, all the immovable properties, covered by such deposits of title deeds, are situate outside the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court. Mainly faced with this contingency; but urging the feature that the cause of action has partially arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and other similar features, the plaintiffs have sought for leave to institute the suits on the original side of this Court. In Application No. 1752 of 1989, M. Srinivasan, J., who earlier dealt with it, found conflicting views; one by Moore, J....
Tag this Judgment!A.E.M Usoof and Sons Vs. O.M. Mohammed Ibrahim Represented by G.P. of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ486
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner is these Civil Revision petitions. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 4192 of 1982 against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner. Though the tenant appears to have initially contested the eviction proceedings so initiated by the landlord, on 2-3-1983, an ex parte order of eviction was passed against the tenant. In M.P.No. 339 of 1983, the tenant filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction and on 11-3-1983, that application was dismissed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No. 1141 of 1983 before the Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. During the pendency of that appeal, the landlord filed M.P.Nos. 364 and 365 of 1983 purporting to be under Section 11(3) an...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India and Another Vs. Maxim A. Lobo and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Mad)103; [1991]190ITR101(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. Aggrieved by an order of the second respondent under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in and by which it was decided to purchase the immovable property belonging to the petitioner situated in R.S. No. 4487 and bearing door No. 126, Santhome High Road, Madras-600 028, the present writ petition challenging the said order has been filed. 2. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner, as owner of the said property entered into an agreement on January 29, 1988, with the third respondent agreeing to transfer 90.505% of his right, title and interest in the property in question for a consideration of Rs. 32,76,733.50. The petitioner under the said agreement proposed to retain 9.495% of his right, title and interest and in addition to that, made the third spondent agree to construct for him a flat of about 1,715 sq. ft. built-up area along with 160 sq. ft. covered car park space at a cost of Rs. 3,30,300. As a required under the provisions of the I...
Tag this Judgment!R. Bakthavatsalam Vs. the Management of Arokkonam Co-op. Urban Bank Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ247
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court passed in I.D. No. 162 of 1981 upholding the non-employment of the petitioner. The petitioner raised on industrial dispute with regard to the dismissal of his service based on two chargers memos issued. After the issue of the chargemenos, the petitioner did not give any explanation since the records which he wanted to peruse, were with police by then in view of certain criminal proceedings which were pending against the petitioner. Though the petitioner asked for the documents, the petitioner was directed to go to the police station and peruse the documents. Since the petitioner did not peruse the documents and he did not give an explanation, no domestic inquiry was held by the 1st respondent, but, he was dismissed from service holding that the petitioner has not given explanation and also relying upon a statement of the petitioner given during the course of an inquiry under Section 65 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Besant Nagar Residents Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ445
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent culminating in the issuance of Notification Ms.No.VI(1)/951/88/(D2(R)10970/ 87), dated 17.10.1988 reclassifying the land use of the vacant lands measuring about 7 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 46(part), 47 and 49 of Uror Village, Besant Nagar from primary residential zone to 'institutional zone' and to quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent not to proceed with the proposed construction of an office complex in the said land.2. The petitioner association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 formed for the purposes of protecting the Welfare of the residents in the Besant Nagar Kalakshetra colony area in Madras. The Besant Nagar and its vicinity have been originally planned as a Primary residential locality and the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, t...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Sunder Rajan Vs. Unit Trust of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ247Mad
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the employees of Unit Trust of India, Madras Regional Office, are the petitioners. They have filed these writ petitions seeking for writs of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from proceeding with the enquiry into the charges in disciplinary action. The ground on which they want this Court to issue the writs of mandamus is that the facts which go to form the background and basis for the charges in the disciplinary action are one and the same in the case of criminal proceedings already initiated against them by the respondents. 2. Mr. K. T. Palpandian, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 1988-II-LLJ-470 to say that when the facts and circumstances forming the background for both the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are one and the same, there ought to be stay of the disciplinary procee...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Sundararajan and anr. Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Unit Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ183
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the employees of Unit Trust of India, Madras Regional Office, are the petitioners They have filed these two writ petitions seeking for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from proceedings with the enquiry into the charges in disciplinary action. The ground on which they want this court to issue the writ of mandamus is that the facts which go to form the background and basis for the charges in the disciplinary action are one and the same in the case of original proceedings already inituted against them by the respondents.2. Mr. K.T. Palpandian, learned Counsel for the petitioners are, would place reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Kushashwar v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. : (1986)IILLJ468SC to say that then the facts and circumstance forcing the background for both the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are one and the same there ought to be stay of the disciplinary proceedings by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »