Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
Narayana Rajoo and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)181MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioners purchased different parcels of land in Silayaneri village, Madurai Taluk for construction of residential houses for them. Only when the petitioners were served with notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, they became aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. The award enquiry was conducted on 17.6.1982 and the petitioners submitted their objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not been served with notices for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25.5.1977 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 21.5.1980. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of their lands under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6.2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Mohamed and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)83MLJ1
P.S. Mishra, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against a common judgment in W.P. Nos. 8381 of 1985 and 9480 of 1986 by the writ petitioners. The petitioners are presently working as Junior Assistants in the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras. They belong to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. The rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which were brought into force on and from the 1st January, 1955 and made applicable to the holders of all posts, whether temporary or permanent, in the service appointed thereto, before on or after the 1st January, 1955, except to the extent otherwise expressly provided by or under any law for the time being in force or in respect of any member of the service by a contract or agreement subsisting, between such member and the State Government, define a 'member of the Service' to mean a person who has been appointed to the service and who had not retired or resigned, been removed or dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Veerachari and ors. Vs. Thimmamma @ Thimmakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)321MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners claim the benefit of Section 68(1), proviso (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that proviso, the houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him shall not be liable to attachment or sale. There are three conditions. First is that, the judgment-debtor should be an agriculturist or a labourer. Secondly, the house and other buildings etc., must be necessary for his enjoyment. Thirdly, the house must be occupied by the judgment-debtor. In this case, even assuming that the first and second requirements are satisfied, the third requirement has not been proved. There is contradictory evidence by the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners. While R.W.3 gives evidence that the house is in the occupation of R.W. 1 by name Venkataswami who is not a judgment-deb...
Tag this Judgment!The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. Vs. V. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)469MLJ1
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6537, 7142 and 7143 of 1985. In each of those writ petitions, the first respondent in the respective writ appeals was the petitioner; respondents 2 to 4 were respondents 1 to 3; and the appellant was the fourth respondent. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking for writs of mandamus to forbear the respondents from acquiring the lands of the petitioners, on the ground of inordinate delay in the prosecution of the land acquisition proceedings. Certain dates have to be set down. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act was published on 10.5.1962. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18.1.1969. The proceedings under Section 9(3) read with Section 10 of the Act took place only on 15.5.1985. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tamizh Selvi Vs. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC296
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the wife against the decree for divorce granted by the First Additional District Judge at Pondicherry on the ground of cruelty.2. Admittedly the marriage took place according to Hindu Sastras on 26-6-1975 and a child was born in July 1976. The respondent alleged in the petition for divorce that when the appellant was pregnant, she wanted to go to her parent s house for delivery, but he refused permission due to several domestic reasons. She left the house in May, 1976 without his consent and got herself admitted in the St. Joseph of Cluny Hospital at Pondicherry, The birth of the child was intimated to him only three days thereafter and he went to the hospital to see the child. But, the appellant refused to show the child to him. He was humiliated and distressed by the conduct of the appellant. She issued a notice in August, 1977 demanding from him maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem. He issued a reply notice asking her to re...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.T. and Co., Rep. by Its Partner E. Govindan Vs. R. Yamuna Bai, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ391
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question that is raised in this second appeal, is, whether the notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant is valid and in accordance with law.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the notice simply refers to the month of tenancy, but does not specify what exactly is the month of tenancy. The notice is issued on 10.1.1983. The relevant portion of the notice states as follows:Please take notice that the lease of the running concern in your favour is hereby terminated with the next ensuing month of tenancy and you are hereby required to surrender vacant possession of the running business together with all the fixtures, machineries, furniture, fittings and the other articles in the same condition in which you took them on lease.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the notice stops with saying 'ensuing month of tenancy', without specifying whether it is in the English calendar month or different tenancy month. According to him, it i...
Tag this Judgment!The District Educational Officer and ors. Vs. K. Rajamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ218
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The appellants in the writ appeal were the respondents in W.P.No.14109 of 1988. The respondents herein were the petitioners in that writ petition. We are referring to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the writ petition.2. The petitioners were in service in the transferred territories of Kanyakumari district and they had entered service in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State, long prior to 31.10.1986 and they were in service on that date. Their claim is that they are entitled to the benefits of the Private Secondary School Scheme which is briefly referred to as P.S.S. Scheme. They came to this Court by way of W.P.No.14109 of 1988 putting forth the following prayer:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents to sanction the salary with increment and other benefits to ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. B. Ramaswamy and Co. Vs. the District Supply Officer, Licensing A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad157
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13-11-1989 and to direct the respondents to restore the normal supply of kerosene to the petitioner who is a wholesale licence holder. The impugned order says that thepetitioner did not lift the quantity of kerosene allotted to him and that the accounts had not been kept properly and, therefore, exercising power under Clause 20(2) of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order 1973 the 1st respondent had suspended the licence in facour of the petitioner. The argument addressed on behalf of the pelitioner is that under Clause 20(2) of the Order, the suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. Clause 20(2) of the Order says that the competent authority 'may by an order in writing suspend, pending enquiry, for a period not exceeding 90 days, the authorisation issued to a wholesale or retailer if he has reason to believe that any contravention of the terms and conditions has taken or is ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Simon Vs. Venkatammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC66
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The petitioner, against whom an ex-parte order of maintenance has been passed in favour of his mother aged 70, has filed the present revision challenging the order of the learned Magistrate, both on the ground setting him ex-parte, as well as his liability to pay maintenance and the quantum.2. The respondent is the widowed mother of the petitioner. She filed M.C. No. 33 of 1985 under Section 125, Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, vellore, claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 /-on the averment that she was widowed while young and with great difficulty she had brought up the Petitioner and her other sons, got them married in life and settled her properties on them. About six months prior to the filing of the petition she was driven-out of their house by the petitioner and another son Sekar, who was initially shown respondent in the petition. The respondent had no means to maintain herself and was too old to earn a living. The...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Durai Vs. Francis Rattisbonne
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Mad10; (1991)IIMLJ466
1. This appeal is directed against an order permitting review of judgment and decree made in first appeal. The judgment in the appeal was delivered on 27-4-1983 and the application for review was presented on 30-11-1983. There is no question of limitation as under the provisions of the Pondicherry Limitation Act it is admittedly in time,2. The ground on which review was sought was that the appellate Court in the course of its judgment had referred to the circumstance that the prior title deed of the respondent herein dated 20-11-1956 was not produced before Court, and that in spite of the best efforts made by the respondent herein the document could not be obtained when the proceedings were pending before the trial Court and the appellate Court. On that ground the document was produced before the Court along with the application for review and review was sought as according to the respondent, his title was proved by the said document.3. The lower appellate Court thought fit to grant re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »