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.
Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Madras Vs. G. Panneerselvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad304; (1991)IMLJ481
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, against the order of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, recording a finding on issue No. 1 in the suit O.S. No. 9922 of 1988 instituted by the respondent herein, praying for a declaration that the election held on 22-9-1988 to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is null and void, non est and inoperative and consequently, restraining the petitioner from giving effect to the results of the said election by publication of the same in the official Gazette of the Government of Tamil Nadu, under sub-rules (1) and (2) of R. 34 of the Election Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. after overruling the objection raised by the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit is barred.2. The respondent is an Advocate borne on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and a voter as well, in the election held on 22-9-1988. According to the averments in the plaint...
Film Center Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT80(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions are taken up for final disposal by consent. 2. W.P. 18534 of 1990 : The challenge is to the notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 6-11-1990 directing the petitioner to file a classification list separately for the hypo-solution under the Heading 37.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Taxation Act. This direction is apparently based on a circular of the Central Board, dated 31-8-1990 purported to have been issued under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 3. W.P. 18533 of 1990 is to declare the said circular as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. W.P. 40 of 1991 is to quash the very same circular by another petitioner. In these writ petitions, no doubt, there is no challenge to any further communication from the Superintendent of Central Excise. 4. The point argued in all these writ petitions is that by issuing the circular, dated 31-8-1990, the Central Board has practically tied the hands of the assessing auth...
Sellammal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ490
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition was connected to W.A. No. 231 of 1989, W.P. No. 7021 of 1989 ere, in the sense that it pertains to the very same acquisition of land and consequently was already directed to be posted together before the Bench along with the writ appeal. Though on 20.12.1990 the other matter came to be disposed of, this writ petition was omitted to be included along with them and, therefore, coming up separately before us for our consideration.2. The petitioners herein have filed the above writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking to call for and quash the records of the second respondent pertaining to the notice dated 24.10.1987 issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and claimed to have been served on them on 28.10.1987 and for a consequential direction for issue of a fresh notice to the petitioners after complying with the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the said Act. The affidavit in support of the writ petitio...
S. Jayaraman Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ589
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the acquisition of land on the ground inter alia that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3.7.1990 was beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification of the intention to acquire the land under Section 4(1) of the Act. The statement in this behalf is available in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is said:It is respectfully submitted that the Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 21.4.1989 and published in the Government Gazette on 17.5.1989. However a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 1135, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 3.7.1990 was published only on 3.7.1990, beyond the period of one year.This fact is not in dispute. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the declaration being bad in law, the acquisition cannot proceed. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, h...
Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu Vs. G. Panneerselvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ481
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, against the order of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, recording a finding on issue No. 1 in the suit O.S.No. 9922 of 1988 instituted by the respondent herein, praying for a declaration that the election held on 22.9.1988 to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, is null and void, renest and inoperative and consequently, restraining the petitioner from giving effect to the results of the said election by publication of the same in the official Gazette of the Government of Tamilnadu, under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 34 of the Election Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, after overruling the objection raised by the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, is barred.2. The respondent is an Advocate borne on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and a voter as well, in the election held on 22.9.1988. According to the averments in t...
Southern India Bearing Distributors Association and Another Vs. Navlom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC315
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. O.S.A. Nos. 86 of 1982 and 88 of 1982 arise out of the judgment and decree dated December 20, 1979, in C.S. No. 101 of 1976, on the file of this court. The plaintiffs in the said suit, namely, the Southern India Bearing Distributors Association and Canara Bank are the appellants in O.S.A. No. 86 of 1982 and the third defendant-insurance company is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 88 of 1982. The suit is for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,89,072 with interest thereon. The first defendant is Navlomour, charterers of vessel S. S. Sumadija, Bucharest, Romania, represented by their agents in India, the South India Corporation Agencies Private Limited, Madras-600 001. The trial court gave a decree against D-3 alone for the abovesaid full sum claimed and decree for Rs. 11,181.56 against D-1. The trial court negatived the suit claim against D-2, namely, the trustees of the port of Bombay. Therefore, O.S.A. No. 86 of 1982, has been filed by the abovesaid plaintiffs praying for decree ...
P. Chinnasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ51Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an order of the first respondent dated November 25, 1987 cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner under the scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependants of the employees who die in harness. 2. The petitioner's father died due to a fatal accident arising out of and in the course of employment on August 5, 1984. Under the scheme of providing job to the legal heirs of the employees of the Electricity Board who died in harness, the petitioner was selected to the post of Helper and was allotted to the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Depot by order dated June 7, 1986. By the impugned order, the above mentioned order of appointment has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Ayyathurai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and that no notice has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further contends that the said ord...
Vijaya Traders by Executive Partner, V. Saradha Vs. C.K. Sampath and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ174
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that the tenant is guilty of subletting. The case of the tenant was that the second respondent herein, who was previously the lessee of the premises, had with the consent of the landlord given possession of the premises to the petitioner for carrying on business and the second respondent had shifted his business to some other premises in another locality. The case that the second respondent is doing business elsewhere has not been proved by production of even one document. The Courts below are right in holding that the second respondent has failed to establish that he is doing business elsewhere.2. As regards the question whether there is a sublease in favour of the second respondent, it is always a matter for inference from the evidence. The landlord cannot be expected to prove that there is a transaction of lease between the tenant and the alleged sub-lessee. The Court has to draw the necessary inference only from th...
Ramachandran and ors. Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ188
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants before me. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of the title of the 1st plaintiff to the suit property and also for a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is a lessee of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the suit property under the registered lease deed dated 7.1.1975. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. Subsequently, they prayed for an alternative relief of recovery of possession by amending the plaint.2. The case set out in the plaint is shortly as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Muthial Ammal, mother of the 1st plaintiff by purchase under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1932 executed by one Ramaswamy Maistry. She was in possession till her death in or about 1950. On her death, the property devolved on the 1st plaintiff and as she was living away from the suit village after her marriage, the properties were entrusted to certain persons,...
S. Shanmughanathan Vs. the Executive Engineer and Administrative Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ339
Bakthavatsalam, 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 mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot 591/A-2 situate in Anna Nagar Division, Madras-40.2. On application from the petitioner for allotment of a residential plot in the City of Madras, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms. No. 1429, dated 15.9.1987 allotting one residential plot in Anna Nagar, Madras-40 to the petitioner on Hire Purchase basis subject to the approval of the M.M.D.A. and subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In pursuance of the allotment order the respondent allotted Plot No. 591/A2 in Anna Nagar measuring 1 ground and 2,236 sq.ft. subject to certain conditions. The important conditions are that the total cost of the plot ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »