Chennai Court July 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.V. Kuppuswamy Ayyangar and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ480
Mishra, J.1. Heard. We do not find any reason to write either a detailed judgment or to enter into any of the questions that arise as to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction for, in the instant appeal what we notice is that by putting the valuation at Rs. 1,000 both for the purpose of the court fee as well as jurisdiction, C.S. No. 240 of 1976 was filed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs on the Original Side of this Court. The valuation at the relevant time to attract the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court was Rs. 50,000 and more which was later amended and made as Rs. 1 lakh and above. The plain tiffs, however, applied for amendment and sought for substitution of the original statement as to the valuation in these terms:The value of the suit is Rs. 1000 for purposes of Court-fee Rs. 1,00,100 for purposes jurisdiction and a Court-fee of Rs. 75 is paid on the valuation of Rs. 1,000 under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Ac...
Nasiffa Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad52; (1991)IIMLJ267
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 4th Friday the 5th days of July 1991 and on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 14-3-91 and made herein and the counter-affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Sukantha Raj, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. S. Muthura-malingam, Advocate for the Respondents, I and 2 and of Mr. K. G. Subramaniam, Advocate for the 3rd respondent the Court made the following order;The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Rule 4(1)(b) of the Examination Bye-laws 1988 of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'bye-laws') published by the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi.2. After hearing the writ petition for some time, a doubt was raised regarding bye-l...
M. Mohamed Abdul Khader Meeran Vs. K. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ173
Venkataswami, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the landlord in the rent control proceedings.2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition briefly are the following. The petitioner as land lord filed R.C.R.P. No. 58 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the rent Controller, Dindigul, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent has committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the period from February, 1982 to June, 1982. That application was resisted by the respondent as tenant contending inter alia that several attempts were made to tender the rent, but for reasons stated in his letters dated 18.5.1982 and 14.7.1982 he could not tender the rent and, the before, there was no wilful default to invoke Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. Further, it is the case of the tenant that on receipt of the lawyer's notice, the entire arrear was paid even before the case was...
Naiffa Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ267
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Rule 4(1)(b) of the Examination Bye-laws 1988 of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'bye-laws') published by the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi.2. After hearing the writ petition for some time, a doubt was raised regarding bye-laws which are applicable whether 1990 or 1988 and as such a miscellaneous petition has been filed to amend the prayer to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the Rule 9(ii) of Examination bye-laws published by the first respondent, CBSE, New Delhi in 1990 is illegal, unconstitutional and inoperative and the miscellaneous petition has been ordered on 10.7.1991 in W.M.P. No. 14116 of 1991 amending the prayer in the main writ petition.3. The brief facts of the case are : The petitioner before me hails from the republic of Maldives, which is one of the member Nations of SAARC. It seems that she completed her P.U.C. Course and obta...
Sivaganga Samasthanam Devasthanam having Its Devasthanam Manager's Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ468
ORDERMishra, J.1. Since these writ petitions arise out of a common order of the respondents 1 to 4 they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Sivaganga Samasthanam Devasthanam has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writs in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire records of the first respondent comprised in his proceedings in pa.Mu. (1) 49884, dated 28.5.1985, that of the third respondent in Roc. A3/31472/82, dated 10.2.1983 and that of the fourth respondent in H.S.D.A. No. 106/90 dated 16.5.1981 and quash the said proceedings.3. Facts in short are as follows:Arulmighu Valmiganathasamy Temple, a temple attached to the petitioner Devasthanam, is situated in survey No. 82/1 of Thiruvettriyur village. Thiruvadanai Taluk. The lands belonging to the temple were however classified as natham in the village accounts. These lands originally belonged to the erstwhile Rajahs and Zamindars who gifted the lands to the temple. In Survey No. 82/1, ther...
N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. N.M.A.R.H. Ramaswamy Chettiar (Died), P.S.V. Sev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad200; (1991)IIMLJ376
ORDER1. This is an application for permission to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/-into Court and to redeem the mortgage forming the subject matter of the suit, O.S. No. 317 of 1975 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai. The revision arises out of an application to set aside the Court auction sale. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and the appellate Court affirmed the said order of dismissal. The Judgment debtor has filed this revision petition. The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of Order 34, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, can be invoked by him during the pendency of the revision and he is now prepared to deposit the amount, which due under the said mortgage and if time is given to him, he will make the deposit. According to him, if the deposit is made, the Court is bound to set aside the sale.2. This application is opposed by counsel for the respondents. According to them, the provision under Order 34, Rule 5, C.P.C. for deposit of the amount is not available t...
S.P.V. Ramaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad320
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent cancelling the State freedom fighters' pension awarded to him earlier in the year 1980-81.2. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he is a native of Pannaikadu village of Kodalkanal taluk, that he was imprisoned at the Central Jail at Madurai in the months from May to July 1941, that he took active part in the Satyagraha movement, and that he wentunderground for about 9 months during 1942-43. It is further alleged in the affidavit that he was awarded about 7 acres of land fay the Collector of Madurai in the year 1950 itself for the sacrifices rendered by him for the freedom of our country. It seems that in the year 1981, he made an application to the first respondent for the grant of freedom fighters' pension through the third respondent enclosing the co-prisoners certificate issued by one P. S. Velusamy Gowder certifying that the petitioner was in Central Jail, Madurai duri...
Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ274
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the owner of the building situate in No. 4, IVth Street, Bharathi Nagar, Madras. The petitioner claimed that the building was outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as the fair rent for the building was fixed at Rs. 1,168 p.m. by the rent Controller under the provisions of the Act. At that time Section 30(ii) of the Act exempted the residential building or part there of occupied by any one tenant, if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeded four hundred rupees. On that basis, the petitioner's contention was that the rent for the building having been fixed at Rs. 1,168 p.m. it was entitled to exemption from the provisions of the Act.2. The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 30(ii) of the Act as unconstitutional in Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu : [1986]2SCR596 . Hence the basis of the claim of the petitioner had disappeared.3. However, when the matter ca...
N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. N.M.A.R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ376
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is an application for permission to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 into Court and to redeem the mortgage forming the subject matter of the suit, O.S. No. 317 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Madurai. The revision arises out of an application to set aside the Court auction sale. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and the appellate Court affirmed the said order of dismissal. The judgment-debtor has filed this revision petition. The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of Order 34, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, can be invoked by him during the pendency of the revision and he is now prepared to deposit the amount, which is due under the said mortgage and if time is given to him, he will make the deposit. According to him, if the deposit is made the Court is bound to set aside the sale.2. This application is opposed by counsel for the respondents. According to them, the provision under Order 34, Rule 5, C.P.C. for deposit of the amount is ...
Sundaravel Industries Vs. Sorna Agencies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ472
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1035 of 1989 : The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 354 of 1987, dated 26.12.1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Sattur, challenging the decree for a sum of Rs. 1,260.90 with interest. The respondent which is the plaintiff is the partnership firm with the name and style of M/s. Sundaraval Industries represented by its partner. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased paper from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 4,174-80. The respondent claimed interest at 24% per annum as per the agreement between the parties. The respondent received the cost of the paper. But he has filed the suit for the recovery of interest with interest at 24% per annum on the suit amount. There is no dispute with regard to the Principal amount in this suit. But the defendant disputed payment of interest at 24% per annum on the suit claim wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »