Chennai Court September 1990 Judgments
S. Ramabadran Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad371
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 8-12-1989 made in W.P. Nos. 12493 and 12494 of 1984 whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed for ihe issue of writs of declaration declaring that the respondents are authorised to levy and collect from the appellant-Company electricity charge under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1979) only on the basis of the assurance given by the first respondent in the writ petitions in their communication No. 138115/U2/75-9 dated 29-6-1976 and not on the basis of the Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 861 P.VV. (Electricity) dated 30-4-1982 and consequently direct the respondents in both the petit ions to refund to the appellants the amounts collected in excess thereof from May 1982.2. W.A. No. 415 of 1990 has been filed against W.P. No. 12493 of 1984 by the Company and W.A. No. 414 of 1990 was filed again...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Alias Gowri Sankar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1745
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, on the lodging of a report, registered a case against the petitioners herein for alleged offences under section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. and took up investigation. The investigation revealed that six murders were committed on different dates by the petitioners and consequently they were arrested and later remanded to custody by the Magistrate, as detailed below : S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of arrest Date of remand 1 Sankar alias Gowri Sankar 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 2 Mohan 15-7-1988 15-7-1988 3 Eldin alias Albert 15-8-1988 16-8-1988 4 Shivaji 29-8-1988 29-8-1988 5. Jayavelu 6-7-1988 7-7-1988 6. Ravi 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 7. Selvam alias Selvan alias Selvaraj 9-8-1988 10-8-1988 8. Raman alias Rajaraman 10-8-1988 11-8-1988 9. Palani 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 10. Paramasivam 8-8-1988 9-8-1988 The remand periods were extended on various dates by the Magistrate time and again. The petitioners were placed under deten...
Tag this Judgment!Parasurama Oil Mills Vs. S. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC409; 1992ACJ95
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed by the management against the award of Rs. 4,116/- passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras in W.C. No. 109 of 1981.2. The case of the respondent is that he was a workman under the appellant right from the year 1970 and he was paid a sum of Rs. 480/- per month as wages. Apart from this, he was paid daily a sum of Rs. 3/- covering tea expenses and bus fare. On 12.12.1980 at 6 a.m. he met with an accident during the course of his employment in the oil mills belonging to M/s. Parasurama Oil Mills, the appellant herein and got his right hand index finger severely injured. He was thereafter immediately taken to the hospital by a co-worker by name Krishna and consequent upon the injury sustained by him, it became permanent disability and the movement of his finger was completely paralysed. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs. 4.500/-.3. The said application is resisted by the appellant herein and he has filed a counter-affida...
Tag this Judgment!Wavoo Magudoom Mohamed and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ281
Somasundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7507 of 1987. In the writ petition the appellants challenged the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the act, on the ground that the said declaration has been made in the present case beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4of the Act. The learned single Judge took the view that the period of one year should be reckoned from 12.2.1986 the date on which the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality, and if so reckoned the declaration under Section 6 made on 4.2.1987 is well within a period of one year from the date on which the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality. Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The present writ appeal is filed against the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Coromandel Prodorite Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT165(Mad)
1. A brief reference to the factual matter leading to the filing of this writ appeal needs notice at the initial stage. 2. The respondent-company markets a wide range of acid resisting cements. One of the products formulated by the respondent-company is 'furacin Syrup'. That syrup was sought to be classified under the Central Excise Tariff Item 15-A by the appellants herein as 'artificial or synthetic resins'. The classification was questioned by the respondent-company through Writ Petition No. 7254 of 1975, but the writ petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the dismissal of writ petition No. 7254 of 1975. A Division Bench of this Court, after elaborate discussion, came to the conclusion that the respondent-company in producing 'furacin Syrup' was not engaged in the process of manufacture so as to attract levy under Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 251 of 1978 was allowed. The appellants questioned the judgment in writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Seshasayee Paper and Board Limited Vs. State of Tamilnadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ274Mad; (1991)IIMLJ53
ORDER1. The workmen of Seshasayee Paper and Board Limited, represented by the Seshasayee Paper Mill Labour Union, are the petitioners in this writ petition. The second respondent management own the Paper Mills at Erode where it is stated that they have employed about 1800 workmen. About 110 workmen concerned in this writ petition were employed in the work connected with stitching, bundling and loading of paper by one Contractor by name S. Chellasamy, the third respondent herein. According to the petitioner union, these 110 workmen were originally employed by one K. P. Thangal, then by one Velappan and lastly by the said S. Chellasamy. It is the case of the petitioner union that these 110 workmen were really employed by the second respondent management and therefore they were employees of the second respondent management. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition proceeds to say that the Government of Tamil Nadu have appointed a Committee to go into the question of abolition o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. N. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar Trust Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)592MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent herein instituted the suit, which has given rise to this Second Appeal for a declaration of its absolute ownership of the suit property and for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the said property. The claim of the respondent is based on a deed of settlement executed by one Chandrasekaran on 1.11.1975 (Ex. A-2) gifting an extent of 1.40 acres in Survey Number 152 in Allapuram Village, Vellore Taluk, North Arcot District which is the subject matter of the suit.2. It is not now in dispute that the suit property and some other properties were bequeathed by V. Kothandarama Mudaliar, the grand father of the plaintiffs donor under a Will dated 15.11.1937 (Ex. A-1) in favour of his son Nataraja Mudaliar and grandson Chandrasekaran. According to the plaintiff, Nataraja Mudaliar got a life estate without any power of alienation and Chandrasekaran had the vested remainder. It was stated in the plaint that th...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Swaminatha Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ244
Somasundaram, J.1. The legal representatives of the claimants in O.P. No. 33 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram is the appellant in this appeal. The referring Officer in the said petition is the respondent in this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Original Petition.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:Total extent of 3 acres and 35, 208 square feet of land had been acquired by the Government under the provisions of Act I of 1894 for construction of a hundred-bed hospital at Chidambaram. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the said acquisition had been published on30.6.1985 and the declarationon 18.1.1969. An extent of 2470 square feet in T.S. No. 1097/1 and 3 acres in T.S. No. 1123 of the said acquired land belonged to the claimant. He had constructed a rice mill on the said land. The...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govinda Gounder and Another Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1508
Kanakaraj, J.1. All the four writ petitions are for the issue of a writs of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenus in each of the cases before this Court and set aside the orders of detention passed against each of the detenus and set them at liberty. W.P. No. 5538 of 1990 has been filed by the father of the detenu one Sevalayan alias Subbarayan. W.P. No. 5539 of 1990 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Sundaramoorthy. W.P. No. 5647 of 1990 has been filed by the father-in-law of the detenu Pakkiri. W.P. No. 5648 of 1990 has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu Veerappan. The detention orders in all the cases are dated 15-3-1990 and relate to the same incident. All the detenus have been detained as bootleggers under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. W.P. Nos. 5647 and 5648 of 1990 have been argued by Sri. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel and W.P. Nos. 5538 and 5539 of 1990 have been argued by Sri. R. Subramaniam.2. We will first narrate the facts leading to the detention ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Moopanar Vs. Ramasamy Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)283MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the executing Court directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000 within 15 days from the date of order, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed.2. The facts which led to the order of the Court below are as follows: The petitioner suffered a decree in O.S. No. 51 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Virudhachalam. The petitioner filed A.S. No. 1205 of 1986 on the file of this Court and prayed for stay in C.M.P. No. 11179 of 1989. This Court granted stay on condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000 in the trial Court within 8 weeks from the date of order, namely, 22.9.1989. The petitioner failed to make the deposit and the stay stood vacated automatically.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 35 of 1990 under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of sale to be held in execution proceedings. That was opposed by the respondent-decree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »