Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
C. Shanmugam Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ905
Bellie, J.1. The petitioner Shanmugam has been detained under S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said order of detention. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the petitioner has raised several grounds. During arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued two points viz., (i) there has been inordinate delay in considering his representation; (ii) as per S. 3(2) of the Act the order of detention can be passed in the first time for three months and thereafter if the detention is to be continued there must be fresh order of detention from time to time, but no such order has been passed and therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Steel Traders Vs. Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC409(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. This tax case (appeal) is preferred against the order of the erstwhile Board of Revenue in B.P. Rt. No. 425 of 1980 dated 18th February, 1980. 2. The appellant-assessee returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,68,581.22 and 'NIL' respectively, for the assessment year 1973-74 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tondiarpet, found that purchases of iron and steel for Rs. 1,51,747.66 were not supported by proper purchase bills and further the assessee was found to have purchased goods for Rs. 30,034.38 from outside the State. The sale out of local purchases was estimated at Rs. 1,74,509.80. On that basis, the assessing officer, by order dated 24th January, 1975, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 5,67,509 and Rs. 2,11,443 respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the appellant preferred and appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Balasundaram and anr. Vs. Dr. S. Mahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)451MLJ1
P.S. Mishra, J.1. The writ petitioner had approached this Court asking for a writ of quo warranto and failed. His attempt to get the order rejecting his prayer for a writ reviewed also failed. He filed another writ petition with prayer for a writ of certiorari and consequential mandamus and succeeded. The instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of Mohan, J. (as he then was) in the second writ petition.2. Several posts under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University/second respondent/appellant in W.A. No. 949 of 1986 were advertised on 8.2.1984 calling for applications from eligible candidates for various posts including the post of Professor and Associate Professor in various faculties. Under Service Regulations framed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, by which the University has been created, conditions of service of teachers appointed under it, including the qualifications, etc., and various modes of appointments, are prescribed. For the post o...
Tag this Judgment!G. Lakshmi Vs. Lalithambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ282
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent herein under Section 67 of the Lunacy Act for a declaration that Ramachandran is a lunatic and for appointment of a guardian both for his person and property. Ramachandran is one of the sons of the first respondent in the original petition. The first respondent had two other sons besides Ramachandran, by name Venkataraman and Krishnamurthy. The petitioner in the original petition is the wife of Venkataraman. The second respondent therein is one of the daughters of the first respondent. Originally, in the said petition, respondents 3 to 7 were impleaded as alienees and the banks in which the monies belonging to Ramachandran were deposited. During the pendency of the original petition, the first respondent, mother of Ramachandran died and her daughter, two sons and a grand-daughter were impleaded as her legal representatives. They were respondents 8 to 11 in the main original petition. 2. The avermen...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Uthrakumaran Vs. Tamil Baptist Mission Middle School and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ386
ORDERS. Govindasamy, J.1. The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 900 of 1985 to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu District, the second respondent herein, to allot one out of five posts of B.Ed. Grade Headmaster made available under the proceedings of the fourth respondent, the Director of School Education, Madras, in his proceedings in Rc.No.433749-B9/84 dated 22.12.1984 to the first respondent herein and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as B.Ed. Grade Headmaster.2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Higher Grade Teacher in the first respondent School in the year 1968. Thereafter, the petitioner as appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1969 and later the petitioner got himself qualified as 'Pulavar' in Tamil obtained B.Litt. degree and also obtained Post Graduate Degree in addition to B.Litt. The first respondent School is having a strength of more than 800 pupil at its roll. I...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Secondary Grade Teachers Training Institute (Men and Women) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Mad1
1. The question which has been referred for our answer by the learned single Judge and which has brought us together to constitute the Full Bench to decide the same runs as follows :"Whether students of unrecognised educational institutions can be permitted to write the public examinations held by the Government?"The Institutions concerned in these writ petitions are yet to get the recognition. These writ petitions have been filed seeking direction for the students to sit for the examinations. There are pronouncements even at the level of the highest court in the land and they have countenanced the general proposition that there should not be taking of examinations conducted by the Government, by the students without the Institutions in which they have undergone the educational courses getting recognition. In Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Supreme Court discountenanced the plea put forth on behalf of the students, who have undergone training in private institutions, wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Kanyakumari District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Vermurug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)46MLJ1
Bellie, J.1. The Kanyakumari District Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-spinning mills) is the appellant in both these appeals. This Spinning Mills Ltd., filed a suit O.S. No. 23 of 1979 against two defendants viz., (1) M/s. Velmurugan Cotton Traders, and (2) M/s. M.P. Kalyanasundaram & Company claiming damages for breach of contract. Of the said two defendants the first defendant M/s. Velmurugan Cotton Traders (hereinafter referred to as the first defendant) filed a suit O.S. No. 108 of 1979 against the Spinning Mills Limited for recovery of alleged money due from the Spinning Mills Limited. The fight in both the suits are only between the Spinning Mills Limited and M/s. Velmurugan Cotton Traders, and the second defendant in O.S. No. 23 of 1979 has been impleaded only as an agent of the first defendant-Velmurugan Cotton Traders. In both the suits the parties pleaded same facts. Therefore the suits were taken up together for trial and a common...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ192
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for specific performance of Ex.A-3 sale agreement dated 4.7.1974 relating to the suit house belonging to the 1st respondent-1st Defendant The 2nd respondent-2nd Defendant is the husband of the 1st respondent and the suit agreement was executed in favour of the appellant by the 2nd respondent, acting as the power agent of 1st respondent, pursuant to the deed of power of attorney Ex. B-l, dated 30.6.1962 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd Respondent.2. The sale consideration under Ex.A-3 is Rs.30,000 and according to the appellant, Rs.5000 was received by the 2nd respondent on behalf, of the 1st respondent as advance. Under the said agreement, the sale deed has to be executed on or before 31.7.1974 when the balance of Rs.25,000 has to be paid. According to the appellant, she informed the respondents 1 and 2 in July, 1974 her readiness to complete the sale and the said respondents agr...
Tag this Judgment!Knitting and Textiles Machinery Works and anr. Vs. Karunabbal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ350
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This Civil Revision petition, at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.519 of 1984, Sub Court, Coimbatore, is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.339 of 1989 in O.S.No.519 of 1984 dismissing that application filed by the petitioners under Sections 149 and 151 C.P.C. praying that the petitioners may be allowed to pay the court-fee of Rs.360.50.2. In the suit O.S.No.519 of 1984 instituted by the respondent herein, they have prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.28,100 from the petitioners as per the claim made in the plaint. In the written statement filed by the petitioners, they not only disputed the claim made by the respondents in the plaint, but also put forward a counter claim against the respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs.13,668.10. In Paragraph 11 of the written statement, the petitioners set out the details of the counter claim and in paragraph 21, the petitioners also expressed their willingness to pay the court-fee on the amount of Rs.13,6...
Tag this Judgment!Essaki and anr. Vs. S. Royappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ540
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No.66 of 1987, Additional District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order passed by the Court below allowing I.A. No. 1835 of 1989 filed by the respondent herein praying that the respondent, who had been earlier examined, should be recalled and further examined and to mark in evidence the instrument on the basis of which the suit had been instituted.2. In O.S. No.66 of 1987, the respondent had prayed for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.5,420/- from the petitioners on a promissory note. That promissory note had been executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.2.50. The petitioners raised an objection that the document on the basis of which the suit had been instituted by the respondent was not a promissory note, but that objection was over-ruled. However, the instrument as such had been omitted to be marked in evidence when the respondent was examined as P.W. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »