Chennai Court March 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.
K. Rajendran Vs. Director (Personnel), Project and Equipment Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ240Mad
T. Somasundaram, JThe prayer in the writ petition is as follows:1. 'For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass orders and issue directions as may be deemed fit and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus quashing that portion of last appointment order, dated 26th June 1986, in Ref. No. PEC. Ms. PERS:RECTT; 86 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent which says that his services would be liable to be terminated at the end of 44 days as it has now been done by the order, dated 30th July 1986, and direct the respondents to regularise his services and award costs and render justice'.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The respondent Corporation, hereinafter called 'the respondent' selected the petitioner for the post of messenger for its Madras office and by the letter, dated 24 March 1983, the respondent offered the petitioner the appointment for the said post for a peri...
Kalyaniammal Vs. Punjab National Bank by Its Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ342
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The appeal is against the order in I.A. No. 302 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The application before the court below was one under Order 21, Rule 58, read with Order 38, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer was to release the scheduled property from attachment made by the Court in I.A. No. 220 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the husband of respondent 2, and father of respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of amounts due to the 1st respondent. Pending suit, an attachment was sought with reference to the property, which is now in question, by the 1st respondent.2. The case of the appellant is that the property in question was sold to her on 12.7.1985 for valuable consideration of Rs. 45,000 by the 2nd respondent in the court below under a registered sale deed. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent in the court below, wh...
K.A. Syed Ali Vs. Saradambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ111
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this civil revision petition. It arises out of the application filed by the petitioner herein to try the maintainability of the main application as a preliminary point. The main application R.C.O.P. No. 54 of 1989 filed by the respondent is for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 27,000 per month. That is being contested by the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 89 of 1990 for deciding the question of maintainability as a preliminary point. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the question of maintainability could be gone into only in the trial after the evidence is recorded. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority held that the appeal was not maintainable and also held that the question raised by the petitioner could not be decided as a preliminary issue without evidence being recorded. Against the said order, the petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.2. At the outset...
V. Shanmugha Mudaliar Vs. Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ385
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This case is an illustration for the oft-quoted saying that a litigant's difficulties begin when he has obtained a decree. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 923 of 1962 on the file of first Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration of his title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on 3.3.1964. An appeal was filed by the fifth defendant in that suit in AS.No.311 of 1964 in this Court and it was dismissed on 29.3.1971. The Petitioner filed E.P. No. 831 of 1981 for executing the decree. One Jawahar caused obstruction on the ground that he had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor. An application was filed by the judgment-debtor herself under Section 47, C.P.C. for dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the property sought to be taken delivery in execution was different from the property for which the suit was decreed. That application was numbered as E.A. No. 6332 of 1981. It was dismissed for default on 12.2.1981. ...
Kali Vs. Commissioner of Police Madras City and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2278
Janarthanam, J.1. The petitioner Kali challenges the order of detention of his friend Mannar alias Manohar (detenu) passed on 24-7-1990 by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, the first respondent herein under S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot loggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order considering him as a Goonda. 2. The detenu was earlier detained on 23-4-1985, 10-8-1986 and 5-10-1987 respectively and was released after the expiry of the period of detention. After his release, he came to adverse notice in nine cases. The first four cases relate to Crime Nos. 1190, 709, 1225 and 1497 of 1989 of F2 Egmore Police Station respectively for offences u/Ss. 380, 420, 380, IPC and S. 65, The Tamil Nadu City Police Act. All those cases culminated in filing of a fina...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]81STC327(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The three points which were under the consideration of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai, were as follows : '(i) Whether the turnover of Rs. 98,16,869 being the freight charges relating to the transport of levy cement sales are part of sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (ii) Whether the turnover of Rs. 1,17,31,397 being the packing charges in respect of levy cement sales also form part of sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act (iii) Whether the turnover of Rs. 41,36,232 being the packing charges in respect of non-levy cement sales also form part of sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act ?' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that so far as points 1 and 2 are concerned, they stand concluded against the assessee by the judgment of this Court reported in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P).) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 STC 171 and, therefore, ...
Venus Industries Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ125Mad
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The appellant herein is an Establishment covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Alleging failure to pay the contributions within the stipulated time as provided by Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 framed under the Act, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, on July 18, 1980. The appellant, as the Principal employer of the establishment, was called upon to show cause within 15 days as to why damages proposed in the show cause notice be not recovered. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted a reply on November 29, 1980. In the reply it was maintained that there had been continuous labour unrest in the establishment since 1976 which had paralysed administrative machinery of the appellant and resulted in the delayed submission of the contribution cards since 1977 period. It was st...
Sree Venkateswara Varukadalai Mills Represented by Its Partner N.V. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ156
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first respondent-tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1981 on the file of the rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. 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 R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the first respondent-partnership firm and respondents 2 to 7 in the said R.C.O.P., who are the partners of the first firm under Section 10(2)(a) and (b) and (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 petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned building. The first respondent is the partnership firm and the respondents 2 to 7 are the partners of the first respondent-firm. The respondents as partners of the first responde...
V. Mannar Vs. the Assistant Director, Director Carpentry and Blacksmit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ38
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or orders, and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorarifted mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in relation to the order bearing R.C. No. 1329/E/87, dated 11.8.1989 quash the same consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 11.8.1989 with all consequential benefits of regularisation, back wages award costs and render justice. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 25.10.1990.3. Though notice has been served on the respondents nobody has entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 Mr. P. Arivudainambi, learned Government Advocate, appears for the third respondent. No counter has been filed by the third respondent. I called for records from the third resp...
The State Vs. K.S. Karuppanna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2229
1. The State is the appellant. The appeal is filed against the Judgment made in C.A. No. 22/85 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gobi, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable u/S. 23(3) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act and Rule 1 and Rule 4(1)(3) read with Rule 3 and Rule 2 read with Rule 38(1) and Rule 3 read with 38(2) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Rules, 1959. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused is the owner of a toddy shop in T.S. No. 43 and at D. No. 9/122, Dharampuram Road, Kolappalur. On 18-9-94 at 4-30 p.m. when the shop was kept open, P.W. 1 Labour Inspector of Gobi inspected his shop and found the accused attending to his business. Natesan and Chandran were the two employees working in the toddy shop. P.W. 1 did not find the establishment register, register sheet, the timing of the shop and also the inspection note book. P.W. 1 found these irregularities and prepared a report on 12-3-1984. Even when P.W. 1 asked th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »