Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
Madras Gymkhana Club Vs. E.S.i.C., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR198]
1. The petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated May 23, 1990. 2. The petitioner-Club received a show cause notice, dated September 27, 1989, pointing out that wages allegedly paid by the contractors in regard to carrying out repairs and renewals of the premises of the Club and dhobi charges should be taken into account by the Club for the purpose of payment of contribution. The petitioner-Club, by its letter dated January 16, 1990, pointed put that in so far as the Club was concerned it had made payment with regard to all its employees and that certain types of work were given to the contractors and that each of the contractors had to make his own arrangement for engagement of people to carry out the work and the Club had no knowledge of these persons or the actual members engaged by the contractors or the payments made to them. The Club also submitted that the bill of the contractors was settled on pre...
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)90MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. By a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', an extent of about 539.98 acres in Nolambur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District were sought to be acquired for the development of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification was issued in G.O.Rt. No. 307, Housing Department, dated 11.12.1975 and published in the Gazette dated 31.12.1975. The deceased grandmother of the petitioner in W.P. No. 9783 of 1982 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 9784 of 1982 owned certain extents of land notified for acquisition. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved in G.O.Ms. No. 1784, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 30.121978 and published in the Gazette dated 30.12.1978. It is at this stage, the above writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramasamy Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ562
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in I.A. No.294 of 1989 in O.S. No.12 of 1986, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 8(5) and Section 151, C.P.C. praying that the petitioner may be substituted in the place of the deceased plaintiff in the suit and to permit the petitioner to proceed with the suit. The father of the petitioner, one Chelliah Naidu, Instituted O.S. No.12 of 1986, Sub Court, Dindigul, for himself and on behalf of the successors to the interest of the original assignees of a. part of T.S.No.239 Dindigul against the respondents herein praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the structures in the suit property, or otherwise interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff in the suit and other successors-in-interest of the property in question. There is no dispute tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramani Ammal Vs. Susilammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad163; (1991)IMLJ1
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 817 of1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, challenging the decree and judgment in the said suit dismissing the main relief regarding specific performance but granting the alternative relief directing the defendant to pay the amount paid by the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties in the court below is adopted herealso.2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint can be briefly stated as follows: The defendant agreed to convey the suit property to the plaintiff and both of them entered into a contract of sale under an agreement dated 23-10-1978. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rupees 89,000/-. A sum of Rs. 5,001/- was paid on the date of the agreement as advance and has been acknowledged by the defendant in the agreement itself. The period of performance under the sale agreement is 4 months. A...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mokkaraj and Others Vs. the Executive Magistrate, Thirumangalam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2150
ORDER1. There are two tanks going by the name 'Meenakshipuram Kanmoi' and 'Chettikulam Kanmoi' at B. Ammapetti Village, Uthamapalayam taluk. These two tanks are public tanks vested with State. The Government, in order to develop fishing industry and avoid indiscriminate clashes and disputes, framed Rules and Regulations bringing the public tanks under the control of the Fisheries Department and enabling it to entrust the fisheries rights to specified individuals. Disputes arose with regard to fishing in the aforesaid two tanks among the residents of the village leading to the filing of O.S. No. 500 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. The group represented by the first petitioner M. Mokkaraj ('A' party) was the plaintiff and the group represented by V. K. Govindaraj ('B' Party) was the defendant in that suit. Both the plaintiff and defendant groups are the members of Bodi Fishermen Co-operative Society. Certain specified members of the said Society ('A' party and 'B' ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Impex Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC157; 1991LC77(Madras); 1991(53)ELT203(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the common order passed by the fifth respondent, namely, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras. dt. 2-12-1988 in Order. No. 606/1988 quashing the same and directing the second respondent, namely, the Collector of Customs, Madras, to refund the redemption fine and the personal penalty already paid by them.2. The brief facts of the case are : The petitioners imported inshell almond seeds and sought clearance under R.E.P. Licence issued against Export Products G.2(i)(a) of the Appendix 17 of Import Trade Control Policy in force at the relevant time. The claimed that the goods as 'Seeds' falling under the category of item indicated against S. No. (d) of the said export product in the policy. According to them, the item allowed for import under the said licence are seeds, p...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Damodaran Vs. E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)IMLJ52
1. The plaintiff, who failed before both the courts below, is the appellant in the second appeal. In this second appeal, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature given in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 242 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet, for a declaration that the date of birth of the plaintiff is December 7, 1930, that he is entitled to continue in service till December 7, 1988 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's service. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The plaintiff entered the service in 1952. His date of birth is December 7, 1930. As per the Rules of the defendant - company, the age of retirement on superannuation in 58 years and the plaintiff is entitled to remain in service till December 7, 1988. The defendants did not enter the age of the employees in the registers. The defendants resolved to modify the age of superannuation of its employees and no...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: [1992]85STC16(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Heard. Petitioner's place of business as well as his residence was inspected on October 17, 1987 and certain documents/records were seized. Twelve items were seized from the residence of the petitioner and twenty-two from his sales depot. Search of the residence of the petitioner, however, was conducted under a warrant issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It appears and it is so stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that, records seized from the residence of the petitioner were deposited in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner applied to the said Magistrate for the release of the seized documents. The Magistrate ordered that 'the petitioner can apply for return of documents 1 to 12 for which M.P. has been restricted except item 11(b) under mahazar and 'XX' book under D7 slip after March 31, 1989 or after the appeal, if any, to be preferred by the petitioner is disposed of, whichever is later. With regard to those t...
Tag this Judgment!TuticorIn New Shore Slum Dwellers Welfare Association, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)95MLJ1
ORDERMishra, J.1. This petition has been filed in public interest by Tuticorin New Shore Slum Dwellers Welfare Association represented by its Vice President. They have questioned the validity of a notice of the Chief Engineer, Tuticorin Port Trust, calling on the fishermen who have been residing upon a parcel of land on the sea shore, to remove their houses and vacate the site under their occupation.2. By a separate petition (W.M.P. No. 8934 of 1989), the petitioner sought to have amendment of the case title and substitution of the name the Chairman, Port Trust, Tuticorin in the place of the Chairman, Madras Port Trust, who had been originally impleaded as the first respondent. The Chief Engineer, Tuticorin Port Trust (second respondent) and the Chairman. Port Trust. Tuticorin (first respondent) have since appeared and shown cause. There can be no objection to the amendment to the petition. The same is accordingly allowed.3. After notice and cause shown, the case has been listed for he...
Tag this Judgment!The Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Ship ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ272
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 7289 of 1974 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 35,078.69 with interest and costs. The suit claim is composed of a sum of Rs. 13,490.84 and interest at 13 1/2 per cent per annum from 18.9.1973 till 16.9.1974 amounting to Rs. 21,587.85. The court below has granted a decree for the above said sum of Rs. 13,490.84 alone and declined to grant the decree for the above said interest on the ground that the nature of the claim by the plaintiff was by way of damages caused to the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendant in not unloading 7 crates at Madras on 17.9.1973 and that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on damages for a civil wrong. So, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal only against the disallowance of the above said interest.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The vessel belonging to the defe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »