Chennai Court February 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.N. Muthusamy Vs. the Joint Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ278
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9282 of 1984. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ Appeal and the respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ Appeal. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner, who was in the employ of the third respondent as headmaster was visited with an order of suspension on 9.11.1983. The order of suspension referred to the conviction of the petitioner by a Criminal Court and the imposition of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years, as the basis for suspending the petitioner. The admitted position is that no disciplinary action as such was prosecuted against the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioner was restored to service on 29.9.1984. However, before his reinstatement into service, the petitioner had already come to this Court by wa...
V. Ganthimathi Vs. the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ488
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Pudukottai Municipality owns a farm growing grass going by the name 'Maruppini Pul Pannai'. The right to cut and remove the grass from the said farm for the period between 1.4.1990 and 31.3.1991 had been auctioned, on 22.2.1990. The maximum bid in the auction was Rs. 4,23,010. One Ganthimathi submitted a letter to the Municipal Council offering Rs. 4,33,035 for the licence to be granted in her favour to cut and remove the grass during the said period. As a consequence, the auction in favour of the highest bidder was not at all confirmed. Pending consideration of the offer of the said Ganthimathi, the Municipality, on appraisal of the relevant provisions, decided to reauction. Aggrieved by such decision, the said Ganthimathi, as plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 421 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Pudukottai against the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality as defendant on 4.4.1990 seeking the relief of declaration of her right to cut and remove the gra...
Rajam Ammal Vs. P.K. Pillai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad310
ORDER1. The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 99 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondents 1 to 4 in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitionerfiled R.C.O.P. No. 99 of 1980 against the respondents for eviction under Ss. 10(2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b) of (he Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the same has been let out to the first respondent under a registered lease agreement dated 3-5-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The first respondent had paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance. The first respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rent for 12 months from O...
Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. P. Sara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ248
M. Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the interim award of Rs. 25,000/- passed against the appellant in I.A. Nos. 859 and 875 of 1989. The appellant has filed a counter affidavit in the application before the court below taking a plea that the appellant's bus TML 7375 had nothing to do with the accident and the appellants denied the accident as such. The Tribunal has passed the interim award on the basis that the copy of the F.I.R. produced before him alleged that the bus TML 7375 was involved in the accident and therefore the accident was true.2. The reasoning of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant is exempted from pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which a claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-section (1) of Section 140 of the Act does not go to the ext...
Ramother and Co., Represented by Its Partner, Ramother S/O Kabulchand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ113
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 610 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 610 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8040 as damages for the breach of contract. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff-firm is doing business in sago, starch and allied products at Salem. The defendant is a proprietary concern doing business in sizing and chemicals at Sivaganj, Indore. On or about 20.2.1978 M/s. Dalal Jayanthilal Gopalji and Company, Bombay offered to purchase on behalf of the defendant six wagon loads of Bombay quality tapioca starch at Rs. 59 per 50 Kg. of F.O.R. at Angadipu-ram or Palghat. The plaintiff r...
Ramalingam Vs. the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur Dist. and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad97
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge dated 9-3-1988 whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 12-4-1980 came to be dismissed.2. The appellant filed an application before the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder to get himself recordedas a cultivating tenant in respect of an estent of 4.83 acres of land belonging to the fourth respondent. By an order dated 5-5-1975 the third respondent ordered to register the name of the appellant as the cultivating tenant, which on appeal by the fourth respondent before the second respondent came to be set aside by order dated 24-12-1975. The appellate authority, while setting aside the order of the third respondent, remitted the matter back to the third respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal.3. In the mean time, the fourth resp...
Union of India Vs. Ruchita Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT482(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. With the consent of Mr. R. Thyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator, the writ appeal itself which is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18400 of 1990, dated 31-1-1991 is taken up for final disposal. 2. In the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to advert to the detailed facts of the case. The learned single Judge directed the release of the goods to the respondent in the following terms: 'After considering the rival submissions made, I am of the view that the goods in question can be released on the petition paying one third of the total amount of eight lakhs of rupees in cash and furnishing bank guarantee for another one third of the total amount and executing a bond for the balance. So far as the differential duty is concerned, the petitioner is directed to pay 1/3rd in cash, furnish bank guarantee for 1/3rd and execute a bond for the balance. So far as the appeal which the p...
Union Bank of India, Ennore Branch, Represented by Its Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ371
Arumugham, J.1. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,01,697.25 with future interest at 15% per. annum against the first defendant, for a mortgage decree against the defendants 2 to 4 for the said amount and for a personal decree against the defendants 2 to 4 for the said amount with subsequent interest and costs.2. The substance of the plaintiffs case as gathered from the plaint is as follows:The plaintiff is a Bank constituted under Central Act 5 of 1970, having its head office at Bombay with the several branches throughout the country and among which, a branch at Ennore, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, is being represented by its Principal Officer and Manager. The first defendant being the fisherman, approached the plaintiff for the grant of loan under the finance programme to his business in fishing, particularly for purchasing a fishing boat and that for the said loan, the defendants 2 to 4 who were also doing the same business, undertook to repay the loan to be grante...
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited Vs. State of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC296(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The instant revision is directed against an order of imposition of penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for alleged violation of the provision of section 8(2) of the Act. 2. We, however, are not required in this case to traverse the whole case or dilate into the details of the facts and the contentions for the two findings recorded by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are enough, in our opinion, for granting the relief prayed for. The Tribunal has stated : 'On going through the registration records we find that the departmental authorities did not take note of the fact that the certificate of registration in new form had not been issued to the appellant.' 3. It so happened that when the petitioner applied for the issuance of the certificate, a new form had already been prescribed. In ignorance of the new form, however, the departmental authorities issued the certificate in the old form. Later, when the defe...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Karuppa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ901
M. Srinivasan, J. 1. It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal has not taken note of the correct facts in this case. There is no dispute that one Angammal died on account of accident on 19.2.1983. One Thoorammal filed O.P. No. 315 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) for awarding a compensation claiming to represent herself as guardian for two minors by name Balakrishnan and Gayathri. The case of the petitioners in that petition was that Thoorammal was the mother of the deceased and Balakrishnan and Gayathri were the minor children of the deceased. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence passed an award on 24.7.1984 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and directed the minors' share to be kept in fixed deposit in the State Bank of India, East Veli Street, Madurai. The Tribunal permitted the first petitioner therein, namely, Thoorammal to withdraw her share of the compensation.2. Even when that petition was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »