Chennai Court December 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.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary, Adi Dravida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ294
Venkataswami, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned judge in W.P. No. 14480 of 1990, dated 15.2.1991.2. The only question that arises for our consideration in this writ appeal is, what exactly is the date of the publication of the Notification for the purpose of Clause (ii) of the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act')? Is it from the date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette, or can it be from the date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality as required in that section, or from the date of publication notice of the substance of such Notification at convenient places in the locality. We are concerned with Sections as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984.3. The admitted facts are the following:In this case, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 21.4.1989 was published in the Official Gazette on 17.5.1989. ...
P. Muthukrishnan Vs. Management of Central Cinema, Dindigul and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR370]
ORDER1. The above writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the order dated July 8, 1982 passed in the Claim Petition No. 360 of 1981 on the file of the second respondent - Labour Court, Madras, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (Act XIV of 1947) claiming a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards service compensation and overtime wages was rejected. 2. The petitioner, in the affidavit in support of the writ petition claims that he was employed as Gate-Keeper in the Central Cinema, Dindigul, that he had put in about 20 years of service, that he was getting a salary of Rs. 150/- per month, that when he was arranging the benches in January 1981, he met with an accident as a result of which he sustained injury in the left leg which ultimately resulted in the amputation of the left leg below the thigh and that when he went after getting cured as above to work, the first respondent management did...
Arulappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ631
1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:For the reasons stated, in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.1.1989 made in Ref. B.SR.B.S.P. Order 11. Rule 88.81410001, quash the same and direct the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner in the post Code No. 4, Financial Analyst as advertised in Advertisement No. 3/88 darted 18.4.1988 notified for the Scheduled Caste....2. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:The petitioner belongs to Pallan community, which is notified as the Scheduled Caste. After passing the B.Com., degree in first class the petitioner completed P.G.D.M. (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) Course, which is considered to be superior to M.B.A. course. The second respondent caused an advertisement bearing ...
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1993Mad1; (1992)IMLJ606
ORDERMishra J.1. A Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 865 of 1982 etc. and W.P. No. 3137 of 1983, etc. held in its judgment dated 8-1-1988 and 21-1-1988 that a subsequent purchaser of a property notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894 and then followed up by Section 6 declaration cannot have any locus standi to question the acquisition. Venkataswami, J. and Abdul Hadi, J. found however that they were unable to agree with the said view.2. Speaking for the Bench in W.P. No, 865 of 1982, Mohan, J. (as he then was) observed :'W. P. No. 865 of 1982. This is a case in which the petitioner with open eyes when the properties have been notified for acquisition by 4(1) notification and then followed up by Section 6 declaration which is conclusive under Section 6(3), has come to purchase the property and wants to say that he could question the validity of the acquisition. In support of the argument, a judgment reported in Gunwan...
Pethanna Aqua Pipes Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC204
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for andquash the reference S. No. 30/2400/1981/Gr.II dated 9.12.1981 of the respondent. --------------------------- Section 58/134/812. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, stated that the firm imported machinery required for the manufacturing purposes of the business of the firm, that a declaration form has been given to the Customs Authorities on 18.9.1981, that the machinery was valued at Rs. 12,15,888/- that the duty was levied at 25% + 5% assessment amounting to Rs.3,64,742.40, that the declaration was not only accepted on the same day and the duty paid as above was also received, and the petitioners were allowed to take delivery of the machinery. While so, it is claimed that the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 9/16.12.1981 under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 informing the petitioner that in respect of the imported machinery clea...
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ606
Mishra, J.1. A Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 865 of 1982 etc. and W.P. No. 3137 of 1983, etc. held in its judgment dated 8.1.1988 and 21.1.1988 that a subsequent purchaser of a property notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 and then followed up by Section 6 declaration, cannot have any locus standi to question the acquisition. Venkataswami, J. and Abdul Hadi, J. found however that they were unable to agree with the said view.2. Speaking for the Bench in W.P. No. 865 of 1982, Mohan, J. (as he then was) observed:W.P. No. 865 of 1982: This is a case in which the petitioner with open eyes when the properties have been notified for acquisition by Section 4(1) notification and then followed up by Section 6 declaration which is conclusive under Section 6(3), has come to purchase the property and wants to say that he could question the validity of the acquisition. In support of the argument, a judgment reported in Smt G...
Shri Rabindra Nath Vs. P.A. Padmanabhan (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad264
1. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 9722 of 1976 on the file of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43.000/-, which according to the plaint allegations represented the deposit which was given to the defendant and the interest thereon. The suit has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 41,700/- and aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The suit was originally filed by Madras Steel Rolling Mills represented by its managing partner Sri P. A. Padmanabhan. But, apart, from other defences, the defendant also raised the contention in the written statement that the said Madras Steel Rolling Mills was not a registered firm and that hence, in view of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the suit was not maintainable at all. However, subsequently, the said plaintiff filed I. A. No. 18755 of 1979 for amending the cause title and thereby substituting 14 individuals in the place of the above said 'Madras ...
Ponnuswamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3100
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused in S.C. 99/87 on the file of the II Additional Session Judge, Salem, challenging his conviction for an offence under S. 304, IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 3 years. The appellant was tried by the court for an offence under S. 302, IPC, in that on 24-1-1987 at about 3-30 p.m. he beat the deceased Chandran with his hands, fisted him and then beat him with the stick M.O. 1 as a result of which Chandran died on the night between 25-1-87 and 26-1-87. 2. The facts are briefly as follows :- The deceased is the younger brother of P.W. 6. P.W. 1 is the wife of Thangasamy, the elder brother of the deceased. All of them were residing in the village Olakkadu within the limits of Yercaud Police Station. The deceased a bachelor aged about 22 at the time of his death, was leading a wayward life involving in crimes. He had no house of his own. On 24-1-87 at about 7 a.m. the deceased came to the house of his brother Thangasamy. Thangasa...
State Vs. A. Modeen Kunju and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3970
ORDER1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Melur Range, along with the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Ramanathapuram and other officials, was said to have made a surprise inspection of vehicles on 4-1-1991 at 4 p.m. at the place called Ganapathiyapuram, which is near Melur and during the course of such inspection, they found that four persons, namely Kodaleeswaran, Krishnan, Sundarraj and Ragunathan were engaged in the process of loading the lorry bearing registration number TMD 6039 and a van bearing registration number TN-59-6797 with gunny bags. On verification of the gunny bags so loaded, it was found the gunny bags contained Jathi Chanks and Patti Chanks. There were 381 bags containing 16,550/- pieces of Jathi Chanks and 400 pieces of Patti Chanks. All of them were seized. 2. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ramanathapuram, filed a complaint, besides producing the seized contrabands, before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur against the aforesaid four persons, impl...
Vimala and ors. Vs. Devadoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ321
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal is against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in MCTOP No. 50 of 1989 granting compensation of Rs. 45,000/- Nos. 1 to 3 herein, for the death of one Devi, who is the widow of the first respondent herein and mother of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, in the motor accident that took place on 30.10.1988 at about 4 a.m. By the said award the said compensation is made payable by the appellants herein on the one hand and the fourth respondent Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited on the other hand, in the ratio of 50:50. Admittedly the bus TML 9935 of the fourth respondent herein, while it was going to the claimants, who are the respondent on the road, in its trip from Coimbatore to Nagercoil, hit the stationary lorry TNL 9198 which was parked on the road and, as a result of the said accident, the above said Devi, who was travelling in the bus, got injured and died in the hospital subsequently. The above said lorry belongs to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›