Chennai Court April 1990 Judgments
Parameswari Brick Works Vs. P.S. Sivaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ316
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This is the second round of rent control proceedings which started 12 years ago. The revision petitioner is the tenant The respondent is the landlord who sought to evict the petitioner from the petitioner mentioned property on two grounds, i.e. the respondent requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and he requires the building for additional accommodation. It need not be said that the ground of additional accommodation comes under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent) Act, 1980. The petitioner resisted me petition but both the authorities concurrently found that the premises is not required for immediate demolition and re-construction but with regard to the requirement of additional accommodation both the authorities below have held that such a requirement is bona fide. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.R.P. No.1292 of 1984. Maheswaran,...
Tag this Judgment!Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust Represented by Its Chairman Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ288
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.4 of 1990. That was a writ petition, preferred by the appellant herein and the respondents herein were the respondents in that writ petition. It is better that we refer to the parties as per their rank and nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner is a Trust. It has established several educational institutions and is running them. The petitioner is registered under the Societies Registration Act On 12.11.1984, the petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No. 1777, Education Department, obtained permission from the second-respondent for starting an engineering college under the name and style of 'Indian Engineering College' at Vadakangulam, Tirunelveli District, hereinafter called the college, under self-financing scheme with effect from 1984-85 for three Branches, namely, 1. Civil Engineering. 2. Mechanical Engineering and 3. Electronics and Communication Engineering. By that Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!T.J. Raju Vs. P.R. Neelakantan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad24
ORDER1. The petitioning creditor P. R. Neelakantan issued Insolvency Notice No. 61 of 1989 demanding the debtor T. J. Raju to discharge the amount due to him viz. Rupees 53,020/-, consisting of Rs. 25,520/- representing the decree amount, Rs. 12,000/- representing the rent from August, 1985 to March, 1986 and Rs. 15,800/- representing the rent from April, 1986 to 10-2-1987. 31 days time had been given for complying with the notice. The judgment-debtor in fact within this time limit, did not comply with the notice. But what he did was that he, prior to the filing of the Insolvency Petition by the petitioning creditor, came forward with the present application for setting aside the insolvency notice on the lone and sole ground of this Court not having any territorial jurisdiction in the sense of himself residing and profitably employed at Delhi in Avery India Limited, from March, 1988 till date. In substantiation of his claim, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked the employer's certi...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanasigamani Vs. Kamala Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ80
ORDERJagarthanam, J.1. O.M.S. No.9 of 1985 has been filed by Gnanasigamani, the husband, for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Kamala Bai. O.M.S. No. 12 of 1983 has been filed by the wife for the restitution of conjugal rights.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of these two suits and the defences raised therein, in pith and substance, may succinctly be stated as follows: The marriage between the spouses was solemnized on 14,5.1979 in the C.S.I. Church, S.T. Mangaud, Kanyakumari District. The husband was employed as Junior Assistant. Medical Section, University of Madras and was residing in Madras. Even before marriage, the wife, who was a resident of Kalliyikkavilai Village in Kanyakumari District, was employed as a Typist in the office of the Christian Literary Society, Madras, and she continued her employment after marriage also, living at the matrimonial abode. It is alleged that while so living, the wife's behaviour towards the elders at home was beyo...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palani Vs. the Executive Engineer, Anti Power theft Squad, Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ124
ORDER1. In this case, an important question of law arises as to whether a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated and continued departmentally against a person who has been convicted by the Sessions Court on a charge of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, during the pendency of the appeal against the said judgment in this Court. There is no decision directly governing this aspect of the matter, while learned Counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. : (1988)IILLJ470SC .The Supreme Court, after referring to some earlier cases, observed thus:The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee to ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Palaniammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ434; [1993]77CompCas223(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. These appeals at the instance of Messrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. have been preferred against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 61, 60 and 59 of 1982, respectively, under the following circumstances : On May 19, 1981, at about 8 a.m. on the Erode-Karur Road at a distance of about 15 km. from Erode, one Chellammal was walking along the road and two others, namely, Ganapathi Gounder and Palani Gounder, were proceeding on cycles. At that time, a tourist taxi, bearing registration No. MDG 3133, belonging to one Ramasami was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Narayanan alias Narayanasami, and an accident took place in which Chellammal sustained grievous injuries and Ganapathi Gounder and Palani Gounder lost their lives. Chellammal (first respondent in C.M.A. No. 100 of 1984 claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000. Likewise, the heirs of the deceased, Palani Gounder (respondents Nos. 1 and 2), in C.M.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Flash Builders Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1990
Reported in: [1993]199ITR112(Mad)
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The brief facts for filing these two petitions are as follows : Writ Petition No. 1259 of 1989 is filed by the purchaser for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records to quash the impugned order dated January 9, 1989, issued by the first respondent in the writ petition, namely, the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, Madras, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ordering the purchase of the property at No. 85, Chamiers Road, Alwarpet, Madras-600 018, by the Central Government, in respect of which the writ petitioner is claimed to have entered into an agreement for purchase with the third respondent for a consideration of Rs. 50,50,000 and in respect of which he had advanced Rs. 3,75,000 in addition to substantial amounts of expenditure, which he had incurred for making an application to the M. M. D. A. for permit and sanction of plan for construction and other developmental matters. By virtue of the impugned order under section 2...
Tag this Judgment!RexIn Sea (India) Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC170; 1991LC282(Madras); 1991(53)ELT218(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture of P.V.C. coated fabrics. The petitioner, finding that the raw material PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride Resin) is not available in sufficient quantities in India, wanted to import the same from foreign countries. P.V.C. Resin is classified under Customs Tariff Act under Item 39.01/06 and the duty is payable 100% ad valorem. 2. However, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Central Government issued Notification No. 66-Cus., 15- 3-1979, under which they ordered that PVC Resin when imported into India, would be exempt from the whole of the customs duty leviable thereon. This notification specifically stated that the same shall be in force upto and inclusive of 31st March, 1981. The petitioner states that acting upon the assurance and promise so held out by the aforesaid Notification dated 15-3-1979, he placed orders with foreign suppliers for import of certain quantities of PVC Resin. The contract betwe...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. the Management of Precise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ243
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.4474 and 4475 of 1982. Those writ petitions were preferred by the respondent in each of the writ appeals. The appellant in these two writ appeals was the respondent in the writ petitions. We are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. The petitioners were visited with orders of determination under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 19 of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for specified periods, in the case of W.P. No. 4474 of 1982, the period being between July, 1978 and December, 1981; and in the case of W.P.No.3375 of 1982, the period being between November, 1978 and May, 1980. The determinations were put in issue by the petitioners in the writ petitions. The point urged before the learned single Judge who dealt with the writ petitions, was that the determinations have been done i...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi College for Women Vs. University of Madras and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad32
ORDER1. Meenakshi College for Women represented by its Principal has filed this writ petition for issue of a mandamus directing the University of Madras, the first respondent herein, to confer autonomous status for the petitioner college, based on the report of the Second Inspection Commission headed by Justice P. Venugopal (Retd.), for a period of five years from the current academic year 1989-90 after getting the concurrence of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, respondents 2 and 3 herein.2. The petitioner college was started in, the year 1975-76 and is affiliated to the first respondent University. At present, it is having nine under-graduate courses and seven postgraduate courses plus M.C.A. Course. It has been adopting the curriculum issued by the University and following the University Syllabus. By a communication dated 21-3-1989, the University informed the petitioner of the launching of a programme of 'autonomous Colleges' and its contemplat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »