Chennai Court August 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.
P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid Vs. A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ16
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 1710 of 1979 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, praying for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 8.11.1978 by respondents 1 to 11 defendants 1 to 11 and for possession thereof or in the alternative for specific performance of the said agreement by respondents 1 to 9 by executing a sale deed over their 5/6th share in the suit properties and for receiving proportionate consideration and for partition and separate possession of the said 5/6th share.2. The allegations made in the plaint may be summarised as follows: The abovesaid property was allotted to one Aziz Khan by order dated 27.11.1969 in L.P.A. No. 72 of 1965. On his death, his heirs under Muslim Law, viz., respondents 1 to 11 inherited the said property. While so, on 8.11.1978, respondents 1 to 11 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the said property to him at the rate of Rs. 20 per s...
R. Kannaiyan Vs. the Assistant Township Administration, T.A. Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ214
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order passed under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act XL of 1971) on 22.6.1990, by which the petitioner was requested to surrender the quarters in which he was residing.2. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Purchase Manager in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and retired from service on 30.11.1989 after serving the Corporation for 33 years. While he was in service, he was allotted a quarters C.30, Block No. 9, J.C. Bose Road, Neyveli and the petitioner has been living in the quarters with his family. The petitioner's eldest son is a qualified Noildar Attendant in the Corporation and he has undergone three years apprentice course in the Corporation and he was appointed as an Industrial Worker, Grade I with effect from 1.1.1991 for a period of one year. The other children of the petitioner are studying in Neyveli. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner has to necessarily ...
Cental Bank of India Vs. V. Guruviah Naidu and Sons (Leather) Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad139
1. Suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 12,54,724.37 with interest at the rate of 21.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the defendants herein and the costs of the suit, that in default of the payment of the same, directing the sale of plaint 'A' Schedule property and applied the sale proceeds towards the payment of decretal amount and that in case, the sale proceeds are not sufficient for the payment of the decretal amount in full, to recover the balance from the defendants with interest at 18% per annum till date of realization and for a charge over the plaint 'B' Schedule property and so on. 2. The substratum of the plaintiffs case as gathered from the plaint is as follows : --The plaintiff is a nationalised banking institution carrying on the banking at No. 11, Second Line Beach Road, Madras and that the first defendant is a private limited liability company incorported under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Madras and that to which the second defendant is the...
Dr. J. Sudarshan Vs. R. Sankaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2427
ORDER1. This application is by the accused in C.C. No. 450/90 on the file of the VII Metropolitan, Magistrate, George Town, Madras facing trial for an offence u/S. 500, IPC, on a complaint filed by the respondent herein, invoking the inherent powers of this court u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the above proceedings. 2. The complaint has been filed by the respondent on the allegation that after nearly 55 years of meritorious service in the Bank of Baroda in various capacities, he relinquished his office for personal reasons and thereafter on 20-11-1988, he attended an interview before the petitioner for a suitable placement for him. The petitioner informed him that a membership fee of Rs. 5,000/-, refundable in the event of the petitioner not being able to provide a job, had to be paid and accordingly, he paid the same. Later on found that the interview was only a hoax and he demanded the return of Rs. 5,000/-. To prevent the respondent from initiating action against the complainant for ret...
R. Antony Doss and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ486
Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been listed after notice of motion. Since we intend to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge as well as with the impugned order purported to be that of the prescribed authority under Section 79(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 on the question whether the latter order is one by a competent authority or vitiated on account of sub-delegation of the statutory power to a so - called Appeal Committee, we think it is not necessary to wait for any counter affidavit or to discuss any other contention raised before us by learned Counsel for the parties.2. It appears for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and rules and regulations framed thereunder in deviating and making construction of and in a building from the approved plan, etc., a proceeding was initiated against the petitioners-appellants under the Act. The petitioners-appellants in the meanwhile applied for a ...
M. Elumalai Vs. Devi Alias Perundevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ113
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein for payment of Rs. 4,054.30 from out of the court deposit.2. The basis of the claim of the petitioner is that he filed a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 4986 of 1983 against the respondents on an agreement dated 10.12.1982. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 8.11.1985. It is stated that the petitioner deposited the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 66,380 seen thereafter. The ex parte decree was set aside and a decree after contest was passed on 20.1.1987. Thereafter, the amount deposited by the petitioner in court was deposited in Vijaya Bank, T. Nagar Branch, Madras, at his instance on 27.3.1987 in the form of a cash certificate. That deposit earned interest and on the date when the petitioner filed the application before the court below, a sum of Rs. 4,054.30 had accrued by way of interest.3. I...
Y.A. Kader Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal (deceased by L.R's)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad208
1. All these appeals are by one Y. A. Kader, A. S. No. 54 of 1980 is against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1977, A.S. No. 351 of 1985 is against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 85 of 1977, A.S. No. 380 of 1985 is against the Judgment and decree in O.S, No. 18 of 1978 and A.S.No. 408 of 1985 is against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1978; all the said suits were on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram. The Appellant Y.A. Kader herein is the Plaintiff in D.S. Nos. 18 of 1978 and 19 of 1978 and defendant in O.S. No. 84 of 1977 and O.S. No. 85 of 1977. O.S. Nos. 84 and 85 of 1977 are for possession and mesne profits. O.S. No. 84 of 1977 was filed by one Mathulakshmi, the 1st Respondent in A.S. No. 54 of 1980. Shehaving died pending A.S.No. 54 of 1980, her three legal representatives were brought on record as Respondents 2 to 4 in the said A.S. No. 54 of 1980. Likewise, in the view of the joint memo dated 17-7-1991, in A.S. No. 380 of 1985 also the same th...
Raghavendra Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1991
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT271(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in WP No. 10415 of 1985, (Raghavendra Enterprises by Managing Partner, B. Singh, Madras-1 v. Union of India by its Secretary (Excise) Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi & Others) disposed of alongwith other Writ Petitions. The petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant in the Writ Appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the parties as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the writ petition. The petitioner questioned the levy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on its products, betel nut powder, packed in packets. The products of the petitioner were sought to be classified as Pan Masala. The petitioner having paid the duty under protest, also wanted refund of the same. The learned Single Judge held that the products of the petitioner could not be classified as Pan Masala so as to attract the levy, under the Act. However, on the question ...
S. Balasubramanian Vs. Special Tahsildar (La) Iii, Maraimalai Nagar Sc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ55
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ appeals, which were dismissed earlier, for want of prosecution, have been restored today by orders passed by us in C.M.P. Nos. 9757 and 9758 of 1990. 2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single judge in and by which he disposed of W.P. Nos. 3701 and 3702 of 1987. The challenge in the writ petitions was of the proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and in doing that, there is a prayer to strike down Section 11-A of the Act as void. Two grounds were urged before the learned single Judge coveting interference in writ powers. The same grounds are being urged before us also. The first ground was that the award was not made within the time prescribed therefor by Section 11-A introduced into the Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act. Section 11-A reads as follows:11-A. Period within which an award sh...
Raju Naicker Vs. Ananthakrishna Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ163
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for a declaration of his right of easement through the channel marked as A, B, C, D, E in the plaint plan and as described in the Schedule to the plaint, for an injunction retraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the B-l schedule channel shown as A, B, E, Fin the plaint plan. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased an extent of 2 acres and 67 cents in S.Nos.246/1 and 248/4 from Tiripurasundari Ammal for Rs. 1,000 under the registered sale deed dated 4.6.1959. It is also his case that he purchased another extent of 49 cents to the south of the said 2 acres and 67 cents orally and thus he was entitled to an extent of 3 acres and 15 cents in that area. According to him, under the sale deed in his favour, he was given right to take water from the maduvu on the north through a channel to the east of the land purchased by hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »