Chennai Court August 1990 Judgments
P. Kulasekaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Southern Railway
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ656Mad; (1991)IIMLJ320
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8601 of 1977 on the file of the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendant in the above mentioned suit is the respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 8601 of 1977 on the file of the City Civil Court for a declaration that the retrenchment of the plaintiff 10 from service with effect from 21.12.1976 by the defendant is illegal and void and that he is deemed to continue in service with all benefits. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff entered service under the defendant as a casual worker on 21.10.1975 and his service from 21.10.1975 till his retrenchment on 21.12.1976 was continuous one. He has worked for more than 240 days for the period from 21.10.1975 to 20.12.1976. He was retrenched from service on 20.12.1976 on oral orders of the...
Tag this Judgment!Vanjiappa Goundar and ors. Vs. Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Kovil by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)92MLJ1
Somasundaram, J.1. S.A. No. 1968 of 1986: The defendant in O.S. No. 143 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Pollachi is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the respective suits.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, for recovery of arrears of rent or damages and also for the recovery of future rent or damages at the rate of Rs. 62 per month from 1.4.1978 till the date of delivery of possession. The case of the plaintiff-Devastanam is as follows:The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property represented by the present Managing Trustee, K. Parthasarathi Chettiar. The defendant took the suit property from the then managing Trustee of the plaintiff-Devastanam on lease long ago on a monthly rental of Rs. 19 per every English Calendar month. Subsequently the monthly rent was f...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.S. Investment Represented by Its Managing Director and ors. Vs. L. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)243MLJ1
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. L.P.A.No.113 of 1990 arises against the order passed in C.M.P.No.3707 of 1989 while C.M.P. No. 9570 of 1990 is a petition to grant leave to file an appeal against the order passed in C.M.P.No.4388 of 1990, dated 28.6.1990. Both L.P.A. No. 113 of 1990 and C.M.P. No. 9570 of 1990 arise out of a common order passed in C.M.P. Nos. 3707 of 1989 and 4388 of 1990 in A.S. No. 796 of 1987 by a learned single Judge of this Court. Notice of motion was ordered in L.P.A. No. 113 of 1990 and the respondents appeared through counsel. In the meantime, C.M.P. No. 9570 of 1990, in an unnumbered appeal, was also filed and as per order of the First Bench consisting of Nainar Sundaram and Somasundaram, JJ., dated 1.8.1990, it was posted before this Court on the ground that the same has some bearing with L.P.A.No.113 of 1990. By consent of both parties, they were heard together and disposed of on merits.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of both the matters can be br...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kulasekaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Owing Southern Railway Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ320
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8601 of 1977 on the file of the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendant in the above mentioned suit is the respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 8601 of 1977 on the file of the City Civil Court for a declaration that the retrenchment of the plaintiff from service with effect from 21.12.1976 by the defendant is illegal and void and that he is deemed to continue in service with all benefits. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff entered service under the defendant as a casual worker on 21.10.1975 and his service from 21.10.1975 till his retrenchment on 21.12.1976 was a continuous one. He has worked for more than 240 days for the period from 21.10.1975 to 20.12.1976. He was retrenched from service on 20.12.1976 on oral orders of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaprakasam Mudaliar, Son of Gurunatha Mudaliar Vs. Selvaraj Padayach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ439
Srinivasan, J.1. Three questions are raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant is a purchaser of the suit property under Ex.B.1, dated 31.7.1969 from one Parthasarathy Naicker, who in turn purchased the property from one Natesa Padayachi under Ex.B.3 dated 26.9.1958. Under Ex.B.2, Natesa Padayachi had purchased the property from one Kokilambal Ammal. The plaintiffs in the suit, who are the respondents herein are the sons of Perumal Padayachi who was the son of Govindasamy. Govindasamy had a brother Manickam whose wife was Kokilambal Ammal referred to above. Manicka Padayachi and Govindasami Padayachi had acquired properties by joint exertion and in a partition in 1940 amongst themselves they divided these properties and the suit property along with some other properties were allotted to the share of Manicka Padayachi. Manicka Padayachi died towards the end of 1940. Govindasami Padayachi filed a suit as the next friend of the first and second plaintiffs herein on the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramamoorthy Alias Vannia Adikalar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2074
ORDER1. Both these petitions are disposed of together since a common question has been raised. 2. Crl. M.P. No. 533 of 1987 :- The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 260 of 1986 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (erstwhile Judicial II Class Magistrate), Ambur. The respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Ambur, after investigation in Crime No. 706 of 1986, filed the final report before the trial Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under S. 309, I.P.C. The prosecution case is that at about 3 p.m. on 8-12-1986, the petitioner commenced a fast-unto-death before the Ambur Town Police, demanding that the Inspector of Police, Ambur Town, and the District Collector, should be suspended and one Subramani of Kamma Krishnapalli village, was had been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, must be set at liberty. The Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the petitioner at 5.30 p.m. on 10-12-1986, after Dr. Sekar ...
Tag this Judgment!Natchimuthu Gounder Vs. Thamayanthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)345MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is absolutely no merit in this revision petition which is directed against an order reducing the upset price fixed for the properties which are brought to sale in execution of the decree. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that fixation of upset price cannot be done at the whims and fancies of the Court and the Court must do it only on proper evidence. Learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment in Ekimalai Naicker v. Kishtambal Ammal 1987 T.L.N.J. 220 and draws my attention to the following passage:As observed above, when the Court fixes the upset price, that fixation is only for facilitating the conduct of the sale and to safeguard the interests of the judgment-debtor by fixing a reserve price. The object of fixing the upset price is to fix the lowest sum for which the property which is being auctioned will be sold or in other words, it is the sum from which the bidding may start. The upset price, therefore, has some relation to the price whic...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thunincharam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1318
1. The appellants are respectively A. 1 and A. 3 in SC No. 31 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The first appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The second appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. The appeal challenges the convictions and sentences. 2. The gravaman of the charge against the appellants and their co-accused A-2, 4 and A-5 who were acquitted by the trial court, was that, on 25-9-1982 at 6.00 p.m. in the village Kanjithazhianthel, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to cause the death of the deceased Kuttikuthirai alias Thuninjaram, aged 45 and armed themselves with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common object, the first appellant caused the death of the deceased by beating him on the head w...
Tag this Judgment!G. Shyamala Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)724; 1991CriLJ1471
ORDER1. This petition has been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for issue of directions to the Director General of Police, Madras, or the Special Branch or C.I.D. Branch of Police, Madras, to investigate the cause of death of the petitioner's husband, Pulavar Gunasekaran. 2. The averments found in the petition have to be stated in brief for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner Shyamala had married the deceased Pulavar Gunasekaran in or about 1972. Two children named Vennila aged about 13 years and Senbaga Pandian, aged about 11 years were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner's husband was an active social worker, trade union leader and a staunch member of the A.I.A.D.M.K. Party. About three years prior to April, 1985, when this petition was filed in this Court, the Government had arranged for starting a Co-operative Spinning Mill at Uttanagarai in Dharmapuri District. The Government had also appointed one P. K. Periyaswamy as the Managing Director. The said Periyaswamy and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Rallis India Ltd., Madras Vs. M. Narasimha Rao and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR777]; (1991)IILLJ505Mad
Raju, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated November 13, 1987 in W.P. No. 932 of 1984 dismissing the said petition seeking to quash the orders of the second respondent herein dated December 15, 1983 made in T.S.E. Case No. 15 of 1973. 2. The relevant facts relating to the case on hand are not in much controversy. The first respondent was appointed and serving under the appellant as a Medical Representative with Headquarters in Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh and he had to work in the areas comprising of Nellore, Chittoor and Cuddapah Districts of Andhra Pradesh State. After October, 1967, according to the appellant, the first respondent was indifferent in the performance of his duties which necessitated the issue of several directions and warnings both orally and in writing also requesting him to improve his efficiency and achieve the sales targets. According to the appellant, there was no improvement and consequently by an order dated January 10, 1973 the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »