Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
The State Bank of India, Represented by Its Chief General Manager Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ93
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The ambit and scope of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) is the pivotal question requiring determination at our hands in this writ appeal. The circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal need a notice at the threshold.2. The following industrial dispute between a workman and. the Management of State Bank of India, Madras, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act by Government of India, vide order No. L-12012/209/80-D.II-A, dated 30th July, 1981:Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Madras in terminating the services of Shri A. Perumal, Ex-watchman with effect from 21.5.1979 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?3. The cause of Perumal had been espoused by the second respondent herein. According to the case of the workman, he after serving in the Indian Army, as a driver, for about 1...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramaswamy Nadar Vs. Pathummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ345
Somasundaram, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 476 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kuzhithurai is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit. The 3rd respondent in the second appeal is the plaintiff and respondents 4 and 5 in the second appeal are defendants 2 and 5 in the suit respectively. In the second appeal, for the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given in the suit.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 476 of 1978 filed a suit for partition and redemption and his case as stated in the plaint is as follows: An extent of 73 cents in S. Nos. 2228 and 2229-A in Kaliyal village described as A Schedule in the plaint was originally owned by one Thamarakulathu Matom. One Achutharu of the said Matom executed a mortgage and Kuzhikkanam in 1955 in favour of the first defendant over the suit properties and other properties. On the date of the said mortgage the first defendant was alread...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasiva Chettiar Vs. Venugopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)101MLJ1
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 383 of 1979 on the file of Sub-Court, Cuddalore. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,538 due on the suit promissory note Ex. A-1, dated 30-7-1970 with future interest from the date of the suit on the principal sum of Rs. 7,000 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum stipulated in the second promissory note. Admittedly, the defendant made payment of Rs. 5 on 27-7-1973 and another sum of Rs. 5 on 25-7-1979 towards the promissory note sum and made endorsements thereof accordingly.2. The defendant filed written statement admitting the execution of the promissory note but contending that the suit promissory note was executed as renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 3-8-1967 executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs wife for a sum of Rs. 2,750 that calculating compound interest on the said promissory note an aggregate sum of Rs. 6,800 was arrived at, that on pressure by the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Mani Vs. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)295MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition has no merits. It is directed against an order of the Appellate Authority remitting the matter before him back to the Rent Controller for appropriate disposal in accordance with law,2. The short facts are these: The petitioner herein, who. is the landlord obtained an ex pane order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 88 of 1982. According to him, he has taken possession of the property pursuant to the ex parte order of eviction. The respondents herein filed I.A. No. 287 of 1986 for. setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. The Rent Controller, without discussing the merits of the application, passed an order that the petition is closed since the tenants have vacated the petition premises. There is no provision either under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or under any other law enabling the Court or an authority to close a petition. The court or authority must either dismiss the petition or allow the petition. At any rate, i...
Tag this Judgment!Narasammal (Died) and anr. Vs. M.S. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ304
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised several interesting questions of law. But they do not arise for consideration in the present case. In fact, they are very much outside the scope of the present proceeding out of which this civil revision petition has arisen.2. The short facts, which are necessary for this revision, are these; The property of the petitioner in the revision petition was the subject matter of mortgage in favour of one, M.S. Jayaprakash, exercising his power under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee brought the property to sale and the respondent herein purchased it. The respondent filed O.S.No.6473 of 1975 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession on the strength of his purchase. In that suit, several defences were raised attacking the validity of the sale in favour of the respondent. The V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by his judgment dated 15-2-1980, upheld t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Suyambu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2506
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The appellant in C.A. No. 282 of 1989 was the 1st accused in S.C. No. 144 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He was convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants 1 and 2 in C.A. No. 289 of 1985 were accused 2 and 3 in the same Sessions case before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. They were convicted for an offence under section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The gravaman of the charge against the accused as arrayed before the trial Court was that they, along with 4th accused Gurusami (who was acquitted by the Sessions Judge), at 5-30 p.m. on 17-2-1983 caused the death of the deceased Thangapandi Nadar in the village Alagappapuram within the jurisdiction of Panagudi police station, 8 K.M. away from Alagappapurarn, the 1st accused stabbing him on his chest with a...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa and ors. Vs. Vellamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC259
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 209 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet The prosecution against them for the alleged commission of offences under Section 494 simpliciter and read with 109 IPC was initiated on a private complaint preferred by the respondent before the trial Magistrate. The respondent's son Kaliyamurthy had married the first petitioner on 6-6-1985 according to his caste customs. While so, the prosecution cast is that the first petitioner married the second petitioner on 12-2-1986 between 6.00 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. at Agasteeswarar Temple, Vetavalam, while her marriage with Kaliyamoorthy was in subsistence. The other petitioners are staled to have abated the bigamous marriage.2. The prosecution was not initiated by Kaliyamurthy, the first husband of the first petitioner but instituted by his father, the respondent herein.3. Mr. K.N. Basha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended tha...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sureddy Seethamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ557
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal filed by the 2nd defendant is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 7930 of 1975 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The suit by the 1st respondent herein is for recovery of Rs. 42,903/- as compensation for damage caused to the plaintiff's lorry by the 2nd defendant-appellant's bus, driven by the 1st defendant, who is the 2nd respondent herein.3. The trial court found that the said driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused damage to the lorry and it assessed the quantum of damages at Rs. 35,103.18 and granted a decree for the same. Further, despite the claim of the 2nd defendant-appellant that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the matter in view of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the trial court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. It also held that non-impleading of the insurance company was not fatal to the maintainability of the suit.4. Now, in this appeal, the learned Counse...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jagannathan and anr. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)153MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The appellants are owners of 17 cents of land in Survey No. 44/2-C, 1.97 acres in Survey No. 45/1 and 33 cents in Survey No. 45/2 Part in Valasaravakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 11.6.1975 proposing to acquire a large extent of land including the abovesaid lands of the appellants for what is called the Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Extension Scheme. According to the appellants, there was no publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. They received notice under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Section 55 of the Act to submit their objections at the enquiry proposed under Section 5-Aof the Act. They filed their objections but the same were overruled. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was duly published. They were served with notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Subramaniya Chettiar Vs. Baby Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ321
Srinivasan, J.1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit on a promissory note has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. On the question, whether the promissory note was supported by consideration the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff. Because of the finding that the defendants are titled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, the suit has been dismissed.2. The question, whether the legal representatives of a debtor are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts was referred to a Full Bench and this revision was also placed before the Full Bench. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative and sent back the matters to be decided on merits by the concerned Judges. Thus, this revision petition has come up before me for decision on merits.3. Section 3(d) of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 defines a debtor as a person from whom any debt is due and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »