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.
A.V. Hanifa Vs. Salima Dhanu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad111; (1991)IIMLJ325
ORDER1. Defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order of the executing Court directing delivery of possession of the suit property overruling the contentions raised by him.2. The short facts are : The respondent filed O.S. No. 543 of 1977 and O.S. No. 216 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem. O.S. No. 543 of 1977 is for recovery of possession while the other suit is for an injunction restraining the defendant from utilising the suit property for any purpose other than that for which it was leased out. Both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment on 8-3-1979. The contention raised by the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, was that the suit for recovery of possession was not maintainableas he was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'. That contention was met by the plaintiff on the ground that the building was a new one completed in 1974...
A.V. Hanifa Vs. Salima Bhanu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ325
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order of the - executing court directing delivery of possession of the suit property overruling the contentions raised by him.2. The short facts are : The respondent filed O.S. No. 543 of 1977 and O.S. No. 216 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Salem. O.S. No. 543 of 1977 is for recovery of possession while the other suit is for an injunction restraining the defendant from utilising the suit property for any purpose other than that for which it was leased out. Both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment on 8.3.1979. The contention raised by the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, was that the suit for recovery of possession was not maintainable as he was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'. That contention was met by the plaintiff on the ground that the building was a new one c...
Chemical Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. O.V. Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC302
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. This is a second petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr. PC to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution in T.O.C.C. No. 51 of 1982 on the file of the Additional C.M.M. E.O.I., Egmore, Madras, as not maintainable and one without jurisdiction.2. Crl. M.P. No. 285 of 1982 was the first petition filed by the petitioners, wherein they had contended that the first petitioner was not liable to pay duty under the Act, in view of the modification issued by the Government of India and further due to the pendency of a revision. It was also contended that the allegations made in the complaint would not constitute any offence punishable under Rules 173-PP and 174 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and therefore the proceedings should be quashed. K.M. Natarajan, J. After elaborate consideration, held against the petitioners and dismissed the petition, with a reservation that it was open to th...
R.S. Balaraman and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ11
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.84 of 1988 decided on 7th of January, 1988.2. Appellants had prayed for a writ of certiorarifled mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1820, Education, dated 30th of October, 1975 and to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30th of October, 1975 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay the maintenance grant to the writ petitioners schools at the rate of 6 per cent out of the total teaching grant every year and for payment of the arrears. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the following order:Certainly after 12 long years, the G.O. cannot be quashed. Therefore solely on the ground of laches, the writ petition will stand dismissed. This shall be without prejudice to any other right of the petitioners.3. In this writ appeal the grievance projected by the learned Counsel for t...
A. Natarajan and Others Vs. Registrar of Co-op. Societies and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ296Mad; (1992)IMLJ63
ORDERMishra, J. 1. This application, by twelve employees of the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is directed against the orders of the Special Officer of the said Bank, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Salem and the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras, impleading besides them as respondents, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Salem District Co-operative Sector Bank Employees Union represented by its Joint Secretary has applied for being impleaded as a party respondent and has been heard as per the order of Court dated 28th January, 1985 in WMP No. 906 of 1985. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Branch Managers in the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., by direct recruitment in the years 1969 and 1972 by the competent authority and that the Special By-laws of the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., contained inter-alia, that persons recruited to the posts of Branch Managers should be atleast a Graduate in Arts...
A. Natarajan and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ63
ORDERMishra, J.1. This application, by twelve employees of the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is directed against the orders of the Special Officer of the said Bank, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Salem and the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras, impleading besides them as respondents, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Salem District Co-operative Sector Bank Employees Union represented by its Joint Secretary has applied for being impleaded as a party-respondent and has been heard as per the order of Court dated 28.1.1985 in W.M.P. No. 906 of l985.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Branch Managers in the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., by direct recruitment in the years 1969 and 1972 by the competent authority and that the Special Bye-laws of the Salem Central Co-operative Bank. Ltd., contained, inter alia, that persons recruited to the posts of Branch Managers should be at least a Graduate in Arts or ...
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ380
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners have come up to this Court for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records made in R.C. No. 32/1339/89, dated 21.2.1990 of the 2nd respondent herein as revised in the proceedings dated 16.11.1990 and quash the same and consequently to pay the petitioners for the Beer supplied by them to the 3rd respondent on par with the rate at which the 3rd respondent had purchased Beer from TASCO for the period from 1.1.1990 and pass such other orders.2. In the year 1983, the Tamil Nadu Government framed Tamil Nadu Brewery Rules, 1983, under the Prohibition Act, 1937. The said Rules provide for granting licence for manufacturing beer and regulating its manufacturing activities. The petitioner company is one registered under the Indian Companies Act and has set up a brewery at Madras for the manufacture of beer after obtaining a licence under the Tamil Nadu Brewery Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1983'). The 3rd re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›