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.
Indian Airlines Corporation, Represented by Regional Director and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ451
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6208 of 1981. The appellants in this writ appeal are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent in this writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition. It will be convenient if we adopt the designations allocated to the parties in the writ petition while we refer to them in this judgment of ours.2. The petitioner, who was in the employ of the Indian Airlines Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, was charge-sheeted in the disciplinary action on three counts; (i) unauthorised absence, (ii) giving false information, and (iii) leaving the station/country without permission. We need not go into the details of the charges for the purpose of disposing of this writ appeal. The charge-sheet was issued on 6.6.1979. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.6.1979. On 25.6.1979 the Enquiry Officer was appointed. Not only that, one Mr. R. Pushpavanam, the ...
B. Viswanathan, Prop. Meenakshi Paper Mart Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ232
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a) and 439(i) and (b) of the Companies Act 1956, for winding up of the respondent company. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is justly and duly indebted to the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 1,36,525 being the amount due on account of failure in supplying seven tonnes of paper inspite of receiving money in advance for ten tonnes, compensation of loss due to breach of contract and expenditure caused by the respondent to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he approached the respondent for supply of ten tonnes of 10 kg. poster paper and paid an advance of Rs. 1,78,200 on 21.6.1989. The said money was paid by means of a demand draft drawn on Bank of Baroda, Vellore branch in favour of the respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that the company supplied only three tonnes of paper and failed to supply the remaining seven tonnes. The value of three tonnes of paper is only Rs. 53,07...
Canara Bank Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas456(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-Canara Bank is against the dismissial of its suit O.S. No. 6148 of 1979, on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, claiming a sum of Rs. 46,486.25 from the defendant-Vijaya Bank. 2. The plaintiff averments are briefly as follows : The defendant presented to the plaintiff's branch at Madras a draft bearing No. 970, dated June 2, 1975, drawn by the plaintiff's Vaniyambadi branch, purported to have been drawn in favour of one N. Krishnamurthy, for Rs. 14,500, for clearance. Since the said draft was presented for payment by a banker, notwithstanding the fact that the advice had not been received by the plaintiff from its branch, the payment was made to the defendant by the plaintiff on June 3, 1975, without further scrutiny, according to the apparent tenor of the instrument. When the plaintiff did not receive any advice, it made enquiries with its Vaniyambadi branch and came to know that the said branch had not issued...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramachandran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ813; [1993]76CompCas335(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the insurance company is against the award of Rs. 1,28,000 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal below in respect of a motor accident which took place on September 3, 1982 and which resulted in the death of one Prithivirajan whose legal representatives are the claimants respondents Nos. 1 to 8. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that he is not attacking the finding of the Tribunal below regarding the negligence of the first respondent driver of the offending vehicle or the other finding regarding the quantum of compensation granted. But, his only contention is that the liability of the appellant insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000 as per the policy and that this aspect has not been considered at all by the Tribunal below. In fact this very appeal is only with reference to the quantum of award granted in excess of the above said of Rs. 50,000. 3. We also perused the policy and we also find...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ30
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the insurance company is against the Award of Rs. 1,28,000 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal below in respect of the motor accident, which took place on 3.9.1982 and which resulted in the death of one Prithivirajan, whose legal representatives are the claimants-respondents 1 to 8.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that he is not attacking the finding of the tribunal below regarding the negligence of the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle or the other finding regarding the quantum of compensation granted. But, his only contention is that the liability of the appellant insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000 as per the policy and that this aspect has not been considered at all by the Tribunal below. In fact this very appeal is only with reference to the quantum of Award granted in excess of the above said Rs. 50,000.3. We also perused the policy and we also find that the con...
Duraiswami and ors. Vs. Munisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ638
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal has to be dismissed on two grounds. The first is that the first respondent, who was the first defendant in the suit, is dead and the appeal has abated not only against him but also against the other respondents. Secondly, there is no merit in the appeal.2. According to the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the first respondent died about five years back. His legal representatives are not brought on record. The other respondents are not his legal representatives. Consequently, the appeal has abated as against the first respondent. The suit is one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs prayed for a single decree against all the defendants. While the trial court declared the title of the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court dismissed the suit in toto. As the appeal has abated as against the first respondent, it has necessarily to abate as against the other respondents also as there cannot be a decree for...
A. Periasamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ229
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarifted mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records from the file of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 534, dated 4.4.1988 and to quash the same and directing the 4th respondent to give effect to the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Mu.Mu. No. 371308/(SE/E3/G8/82, dated 29.10.1983 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner is working as a Tamil Pandit in the 4th respondent-school which was a High School and when the Higher Secondary pattern of education was introduced in the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1978, the 4th respondent-s...
S.P. Govindaraj and anr. Vs. A. Palaniappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ486
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners are challenging their adjudication as insolvents by the Additional District Judge at Erode in C.M.A. No. 51 of 1990. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner filed I.P.No.16 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Erode, on 10.10.1985 for declaring him an insolvent. The first respondent herein was shown as a creditor, to whom a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 was stated to be due. On the same day, the second petitioner filed I.P.No.15 of 1985 for declaring her an insolvent. The first respondent herein was shown to be a creditor and the same amount of Rs. 1,40,000 was mentioned as thedebt. In both the petitions, it was alleged that the business of the first petitioner ended in heavy loss and they could not pay the debts due to the creditors. The petitioners were opposed by the creditors. The second respondent herein filed applications to get itself impleaded as party to the said Insolvency Petitions. Those petitions were ordered and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›