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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Vummidi Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ222
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2439 of 1981, on the file of the second Additional City Civil Judge, Madras. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent. The facts leading to the appeal maybe traced as follows : On 7.8.1964, an agreement of lease, as per Ex. A-1, was entered into between the plaintiff and Esso Standard Eastern Inc., in and by which a lease of the suit land was given to the defendant. It is sufficient if we recapitulate only the relevant terms of the lease. The period of lease was from 1.7.1964 to 30.6.1974. There was a payment of an advance of Rs. 15, 600 to be adjusted from half of the monthly rent for the first four years. Clause 3(d) of the lease contemplated the renewal of the lease and since a part of the controversy in this appeal arises out of this clause, we feel obliged to extract the said clause as follows:That the landlord will on the written request of the tenant made 2 calenda...
P. Ponniah Vs. Estate Officer, Southern Railways, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad388; (1991)IIMLJ12
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2377 of 1986 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition arc the respondents in the writ appeal. We are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner was put in possession of a vacant site belonging to the railways. The petitioner would call the arrnagements a lease. The railways would call it a licence. But, nothing crucial turns upon this aspect when we consider the nature of the controversy which we are called upon to resolve, because the terms of the grant must speak with reference to the rights and obligations of the parties. After issuing the notice of termination, the railways called upon the petitioner to vacate the land after removing the superstructures put up by him. Finding no compliance with the same, the process under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been resort...
Kumari Estate Workers' Union, Nagercoil Vs. Modaile Easwari Estate, Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ500Mad
1. The petitioner is a union which espouses the cause of three workers herein. The three workers are employed tappers by the 1st respondent management. Their services were terminated after an ex parte enquiry on the charges of misconduct, by an order date March 27, 1981. The said three workers filed O.S. No. 338/81 for an order of injunction restraining the management from interfering with the right of the plaintiff from doing tapping work. In the said suit they have specifically pleaded that the orders of termination were invalid and therefore they had right to continue in service. In the written statement, the management took a plea that the civil suit was not maintainable and the relief of reinstatement in service which in effect would be the relief if the suit is decreed cannot be granted, by a civil court. According to the petitioner, on advice, they did not prosecute the suit. Consequently the suit was dismissed for default. In the meanwhile the petitioner raised an industrial di...
Zinc Products Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT222(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. There are four Writ Appeals. The parties are two in number. M/s. Zinc Products preferred W.P. No. 19387 of 1990, impugning the order dated 26-6-1990 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs whereunder there is a direction to all the Collectorates to classify micro nutrient under Heading 38.08 which covers plant growth regulators. Hitherto M/s. Zinc Products has been classifying its product of zinc sulphate under Heading 28.33 which covers sulphate of all metals. M/s. Zinc Products has preferred W.P. No. 19379 of 1990 questioning the communication dated 26-11-1990 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras, whereunder M/s. Zinc Products has been called upon to classify its product zinc sulphate micro nutrients under Heading 38.08 and there is a further call to furnish the requisite particulars on that basis. W.P. No. 19671 of 1990 was preferred by M/s. Swathy Chemicals (P) Ltd., which is also a manufacturer of the very same product, to quash the order ...
M. Chainraj and Others Vs. Sulochana C. Daniel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3257
ORDER1. Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 4450 of 1988 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. 2. All accused are related to each other. Accused 1 is the paternal uncle of accused 2 to 4 who are all brothers. Accused 5 is the sister's son of accused 1's wife. A partnership firm under the name and style of Ananda Trading Co. was formed at Madras on 14-5-1982 and registered with the Registrar of firms, Madras on 24-7-1982. The respondent-complainant along with her mother in law Mrs. Rose Daniel became partners of the firm. Accused 1 to 3 also became the partners of the firm. The firm consisted of 19 partners. 3. On 17-5-1982 the firm acquired an old shop M. V. St. Demetrius in the name of D. Narasingamurthy, one of the partners of the firm for its metal scrap. For dismantling of the ship and selling the scraps accused 1 and D. Narasingamurthy were appointed by all the other partners as Managing Partners and given a Power of Attorney to act for the firm. A current...
Ravichandran Vs. Mariyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1675
ORDER1. Ravinchandran (petitioner) is the accused in C.C. No. 471 of 1986 on the file of Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sirkali. 2. The succinct facts leading to the filing of the petition are :- Mariyammal, respondent herein, is unmarried. The respondent is living with her parents at Kattunaicken street, Vaitheeswarnkoil. Her father is owing a store dealing with articles required for the purpose of pooja to deities. Opposite to the shop, one Ravinchandran, the petitioner/accused is also owning - a shop transacting the same business. The respondent used to assist her brother in the shop. In that process, she came into contact with the petitioner and in due course of time, a bondage of love got solemnised between them. They were moving like that for about 3 years. It is alleged that the petitioner made persistent efforts to enjoy her blissful company, even prior to their marriage. She appeared to have been evading such request all along. On 18-1-1985 at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner was...
Sam Antony Danasekaran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ474
Swamidurai, J. 1. The first accused is SC 151 of 1984 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, is the appellant. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge u/S. 376 read with 511, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for an offence u/S. 302, IPC, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also convicted u/S. 201 IPC., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. If the fine amount of Rs. 3,500/- was paid by the appellant, the same was directed to be paid to P.W. 8 Thangammal. The appellant is challenging ...
Chellammal Vs. Alandur Municipality, Represented by Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ299; (1992)1LW110
Thangamani, J.1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the courts below has preferred this Second Appeal. She is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 33, Kothawal Street, Alandur. The property tax for this property which was originally Rs. 92-70 per half year was suddenly increased to Rs. 927.00 per half year. There was no notice served on the appellant before revision. Besides the assessment No. 9217 was split into three bearing numbers as 92/7, 92/8, 92/9. The plaintiff filed revision and appeal to the Municipality on which the Municipality did not pass any orders. So she instituted O.S.No.505 of 1972 in the court of District Munsif, Poonamalle for declaration that the enhanced assessment is illegal and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent municipality from collecting tax at the enhanced rate.2. The municipality resisted the suit contending that when their Bill Collector inspected the premises he found that the appellant has converted the premises into 17 t...
A.M. Dhanapal Chettiar Vs. T.D. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ490
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 27 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Mun-sif), Krishnagiri, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondents 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 by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2 The petitioner filed an application R.C.O.P. No. 27 of 1981 for eviction against the respondents under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The two shops bearing door Nos. 79 and 80 which are described in the schedule appended to the petition belonged to the petitioner. The first respondent took door No. 80 for rent in or about 1968 and door No. 79 in 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 and Rs. 100 respectively and occupied them. At present the rent for both the shops is Rs. 5...
In Re: Adham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2102
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first accused before the Principal Assistant Session Judge, Tiruchi. He along with another accused by name Palraj was tried for an offence under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code as he was found in possession of 49 counterfeit currency notes of hundred rupee denomination, marked as M.O. 1 series and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate court are contrary to the decision reported in M. Mamhutti v. State of Karnataka, : 1979CriLJ1383 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows : 'If the notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that they were counterfeit, such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. But the difficulty is that the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »