Chennai Court June 1990 Judgments
Patel Roadways P. Ltd. Vs. Tropical Agrosystems P. Ltd., Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ204
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 6720 of 1985 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The suit was laid by the respondents herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 91,077-67 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of payment and for other reliefs. According to the case of the first respondent, they entrusted 664 and 518 packets of pesticides, insured with the second respondent to the petitioner carrier at Madras, which was accepted and acknowledged by the petitioner by the issue of lorry receipts dated 20-5-1983 and 7-5-1983, and the goods were delivered by the petitioner in a damaged condition at New Delhi and it had thus failed to discharge its statutory obligations under the Carriers Act, which had resulted in the first respondent sustaining loss to the tune of the amounts claimed in the suit, which was made good by the second respondent, for recovering which the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Ponvel Nadar and anr. Vs. Khursheed Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ455
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition, at the instance of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.J.S. No. 8017 of 1980, on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras raises an interesting question under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the following background of facts; The property bearing old door No.30 and new No.33, Narayana Naicken Street, Pudupet, Madras-600002, belonged to one Khader Bee. Under a deed of settlement dated 12.1.1945, she settled that property in favour of the third respondent herein and his brother Mohmood Basha. Respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and son of Mohmood Basha respectively. In O.S. No. 8017 of 1980, the third respondent herein instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the property so settled and for rendition of accounts of the mesne profits and other reliefs. While that suit was pending, on 15.11981, the third respondent sold his undivided half share in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vaithilingam Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Minor Maruganandham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: II(1994)DMC226
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 197 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment passed in the said suit.2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is briefly as follows :-- The plaintiff's grand-father Marudaiya Pillai, who was a devotee of Sub-ramaniaswami wanted to perform a charity on auspicious days like Karthigai, including feeding poor. He constructed a building and named it after 'Karthigai Annadhana Mandapam' next to his house at door No. 24, Thiruthanthoni Road, Woriyuur, Tiruchy and he was performing the said Kattalai. His ambition was that the Kattalai must be continuously performed without any break even after his lifetime. Hence, he created a permanent trust under the name and style of 'Karthigai Kattalai attached to Annadhana Madam' and endowed properties set out in the schedule thereto. In the said madam, there is a portrait of Palani Dhandayudhapani for which he use...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Bellan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ120
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter comes up after notice of motion There is representation for both the respondents. The first respondent is being represented by the Special Government Pleader and the second respondent by Mr. Balasubramanian. This Writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Np.7132 of 1982. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the writ petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. Convenience suggests to us to refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner was employed as a Clerk with/the second respondent. His services were terminated on 7.12.1973 on the ground that the petitioner lacked the qualifications for the post in which he was employed. The petitioner was agitating over his termination from services departmentally. On 6,2.1976 the second respondent reinstated the petitioner. The body of the said order reads as follows:Thiru H.K. Bellan, Ex-Clerk, Nilgiris Co-...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Medical College and Hospital Employees Union Vs. State of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ312
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The Prayer in the Writ Petition runs as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from, the first-respondent pertaining to G.O. Ms.No.274, Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.2.1979 and further confirmed by their order in Letter No.11180/C2/88-1, dated 29.4.1988, quash the orders dated 19.2.1979 and 29.4.1988 and consequently direct the first respondent to refer the dispute of the non-employment of 40 workmen for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, forthwith, award costs and render justice.By G.O.Ms.No.274, Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.2.1979 referred to in the prayer in the Writ Petition and hereinafter called as the impugned Government Order, there has been a decline on the part of the first-respondent to refer for adjudication the industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Union Bank of India and Others Vs. Vummidiar Agencies and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad200
ORDER1. Vummidiar Agencies (for short 'the firm' -- first defendant) is a partnership firm doing business at No. 162, Anna Salai, Madras-2. Defendants 2 to 4 are the partners of the firm. Union Bank of India, carrying on banking business at No. 24, G. N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, the plaintiff made certain advances to firm. When the firm made default in honouring its commitments, in the sense of discharging the advances taken by way of loan by them, the plaintiff-bank was rather constrained to file C.S. No. 473 of 1977.2. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,85,191.65 with interest thereon at the rate of 16 per cent per annum. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into between the plaintiff-bank and the firm. In the compromise, three items of properties belonging to the family of the partners were offered as security for the due discharge of the amount of the consent decree. Thirumathi V. Shantha (applicant in Application No. 4333 of 1989) and T...
Tag this Judgment!N. Meenakshisundaram Vs. South India Corporation (P) Ltd., Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ431
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The South India Corporation Private Ltd., (for short 'Corporation') is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Anna Salai, Madras-2 and carrying on business of Engineering Contractors it Cochin, Madras and other places. The Corporation and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for short 'Board') represented by its Chairman entered into an agreement on 27.10.1967 for supply and erection of Power House Structural Steel between columns 0 to 10 (both inclusive) excluding Coal Bunker for the Ennore Thermal Scheme, Ennore, Madras-57, according to Specification No. C. 990 with a clause for arbitration in case of any dispute arising between the parties. After completion of the work, the Corporation had been claiming from the Board payments for execution of the work. Disputes between them arose, in the sense of the Board denying certain of the claims made by the Corporation, which resulted in the Corporation filing Civil Suit No. 144...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›