Chennai Court October 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.H. Jiffri Kareem Vs. the Addl. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3086
Somasundaram, J.1. At the parties and the facts on the basis of which the reliefs are claimed in these three writ petitions are common, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions is as follows :- The petitioner is carrying on business in manufacturing and selling jewel boxes to jewellers in Madras and Kerala. On 28-8-1990 at about 10 a.m. the officer of the first respondent entered into the petitioner's premises, searched the same and seized various papers as well as a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/-. The petitioner was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. 1), Egmore, Madras on 2-9-1989 at 4 p.m. The petitioner was released on bail on 10-10-1990. Immediately after release he sent a telegram on 10-10-1990 demanding the return of the currency seized from his premises. The entire proceedings of the officers of the first respondent is illegal and the first respondent is illeg...
R. Devendran and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ616
ORDERS. Govindasamy, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government to acquire the lands of about an extent of 1655.92 acres or thereabouts under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the purpose of setting up an Aromatic Complex and other petro based downstream projects of Madras Refineries Limited, hereinafter referred to as the 'M.R.L.' at the approximate cost of Rs. 2,500 crores, by invoking the urgency provisions of Section 17(1), and (4) of the Act, while issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Since the petitioners have raised common grounds in challenging the acquisition proceedings, all the writ petitions were heard and disposed of together.2. In view of the heavy demand for the lands In Manali Village for setting up of an Aromatic complex and other petro-based downstream projects, close to M.R.L., the Government proposed to acquire a...
Samikkannu Vs. Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ515
Janarthanam, J.1. The subject matter of dispute is relatable to an extent of land measuring 1 acre, 49 cents in S. No. 23/2A, Erivakkam village. One Samikkannu is said to have purchased the 'same from Chinnathambi and his children under Ex.A-5, registered sale deed dated 19.11.1974. Chinnathambi is said to have purchased the said property from one Chinnappan under Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 19.12.1953.2. Samikkannu, after the purchase of the said property, was said to have entered into possession of the same and his possession was sought to be disturbed by one Raju, who is none-else than Chinnathambi's elder sister's son. Consequently, the said Samikkannu, figuring as plaintiff, instituted the suit in O.S. No. 1071 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram for declaration and injunction, impleading Raju and his sons, namely, Chandran, Mani and Kanniappan, as defendants 1 to 4.3. The said suit had been resisted by the defendants 1 to 4 contending that the suit property had be...
Pl. Ct. Sp. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Meenakshi Achi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad354; [1992]197ITR625(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 10th day of February, 1982 by a learned single Judge in application No. 1718 of 1981 in C.S. No. 83 of 1965 on the file of this court.2. C.S. No. 83 of 1965 was one in partition action of the estate of late Chidambaram Chettiar. Out of seven heirs, one of the heirs, namely, Meenakshi Achi, figuring as plaintiff, brought the said partition action, im-pleading the rest of the heirs as defendants 1 to 6. By consent, a preliminary dceree had been passed declaring the entitlement of 1 / 7th share in the said estate to each of them. The estate was burdened with the obligations of meeting the pressing demands of huge arrears of Income-tax, Wealth Tax, Urban Land Tax, Property tax and what not. In order to relieve the pressure on the estate, this Court on 26-4-1977, directed an Advocate-Commissioner to sell two items of immovable properties belonging to the estate, namely, house, ground and premises bearing Nos. 5, 5-A and 6-B, Wi...
Ambikanathan P.S. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ173Mad
Janarthanam, J. 1. Madras Type Foundry situate at No. 41, Bazullah Road, Madras-17, of which the appellant herein, namely, P.S. Ambikanathan is the proprietor, is an age old factory said to be manufacturing printing types and printing accessories on and from 1952. Of course, on this aspect of the matter, there is no material traceable to records. However, it is represented at the Bar beyond any pale of controversy, that the said factory had been in existence as stated above.2. It is also not in dispute that this factory is liable for payment of contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). There had been regular payment of contribution till up to the year 1974 and thereafter, default appeared to have been committed by the appellant in making such contribution. Consistent defaults had been committed for the period between 1977 and 1981.3. Consequently proceedings under Section 45-A had been initiated for determination of the amount of contribution du...
R. Ponnusamy Vs. the Registrar, Anna University and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ540
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the first respondent University in 'The Hindu' and 'Indian Express' calling for applications to fill up two vacancies in the Division of Geology a post of Assistant Professor and Lecturer, the petitioner and the second respondent applied for the same. The Selection Committee had considered the applications, found the second respondent suitable and selected the second respondent for the post of Lecturer in Geology. The petitioner, who is one of the candidates who applied for the post, has come to this Court challenging the selection of the second respondent.2. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the second respondent is not qualified to hold the post and the essential qualification for the post of Lecturer being a Doctorate Degree or Research Work and in the absence of Doctor's Degree a person possessing M. Phil will have to be appointed and as such the petitioner, who has got M. Phil has got to be selected. It is...
Arumugha Nainar Vs. Lakshmana Perumal (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad280; (1992)IMLJ457
1. This second appeal has to be disposed of on a very short ground. The appellant filed O.S. No. 94 of 1976 against one Lakshmana Perumal for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendant. Lakshmana Peru-ma], filed a suit O.S. No. III of 1976 for declaration of his title and injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession. Both the suits were tried together. The trial Court by its judgment dated 12th September 1979 upheld the title of the appellant and negatived the claim of the defendant Lakshmana Perumal. He held categorically that the appellant had title to the suit property.2. The aggrieved defendant Lakshmana Perumal filed only one Appeal A.S. No. 161 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge Tuticorin against O.S. No. 94 of 1976. He did not file any appeal against O.S. No. III of 1976. Thus, the decree and judgment in O.S. No. III of 1976 became final.3. The appellate Court rejected the contention r...
Jeyakumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2468
1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C. 55/85 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division, challenging his conviction for offences under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 years for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The appellant was tried for the offences under sections 457, 380 and 392, I.P.C. read with 397, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 17-12-1983 he committed theft of a gold chain weighing 7 sovereigns belonging to Ethiraj Ammal from her residence and on 18-12-1983 at 12.00 midnight he trespassed into her house and at the point of knife, made her part with gold jewels weighing 17 1/2 sovereigns. 3. Facts briefly are as follows :- Ethiraj Ammal (who died before commencement of the trial) was residing alone in Door No. 80, Chunnambukara Street, Tiruchirapalli. P.W. 1 her son, was living in another part of Tiruchirapalli. On intimation on the morning of 19-12-19...
R. Manonmani Vs. Kaliamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ142
V. Ratnam, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tiruvannamalai, in M.C.O.P. No. 49 of 1984.2. On 22.8.1984 at about 9.30 a.m. an accident took place between a bus TNM 6579 belonging to the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent and a cyclist, Ravi, who was proceeding from Vellore Road, near Periyar Statue at Tiruvannamalai. In that accident, the cyclist Ravi sustained injuries in his waist, chest and stomach and died instantaneously. The appellant is the mother of deceased Ravi and, according to her, the accident, resulting in the death of Ravi, took place entirely owing to the rash and negligent driving of the bus TNM 6579 by its driver. The deceased, according to the appellant, was working under a private doctor and was earning a salary of Rs. 150 p.m. besides doing beedies work at home, thereby earning another Rs. 150/- p.m. and was supporting the appellant ...
D. Jeyabalan Vs. the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ7
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent/University which has passed a cryptic Order.2. The petitioner is a practicing Lawyer. He has sought for permission to register for Ph.D. Degree in the respondent/University on 01.02.1990. By its letter dated 09.11.1990, the University has stated that his request for permission to register for Ph.D. Degree is not complied with. The petitioner is before me against this order.3. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 17.12.1990 and Mr. Veluswamy appears for the University/ respondent.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the judgment reported in Sampath v. Registrar, University of Madras, 1988 W.L.R. 247, is in his favour and as such this Court should straightaway allow the writ petition setting aside the order of the Respondent.5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the University states that the Laws (Statutes and Ordinances) of the respondent/University in Chapter XXVIII...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »