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.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Paul Sridharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC569; (1991)2MLJ283
Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal at the instance of the New India Assurance Company against the award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court II), Chingleput, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in fastening liability on the part of the Insurance Company for the payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 33, 600 to the 1st respondent herein.2. There is no dispute now that in an accident that took place on 20.2.1980 involving the lorry bearing MDH 3003, the wife of the 1st respondent sustained injuries and later died. According to the 1st respondent, the lorry MDH 3003 was driven rashly and negligently and that has caused the accident to his wife, and in respect of that, he was entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent is stated to have purchased the vehicle from the owner the 4th respondent on 24.12.1979. The Insura...
Chief Engineer Constructions, Works Branch, Southern Railway and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ40
Mishra, J.1. Mr. B.T. Seshadri appears on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent. It is agreed between the parties that the entire matter, that is to say, the appeal itself can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is in the interests of all concerned that the appeal itself is finally disposed of at this stage. 2. The impugned order reads as follows:I have heard Mr. B.T. Seshadri on behalf of the contractor and Mr. V.R. Gopalan on behalf of the Railways. I have also perused me affidavit filed in support of the suit and the counter statement filed on behalf of the Railways. The General Manager, Southern Railway, will follow the procedure in accordance with Clause 63(3)(ii) and Clause 63(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint two Arbitrators to decide the dispute and differences that have arisen between the contractor and the Southern Railway. All the disputes that have already been raised by...
Rohayya Beevi and anr. Vs. C. Varadarajulu Naidu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ90
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. The first respondent, who died during the pendency of the appeal, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 19/24 shares. He claimed to have purchased under a sale deed dated 22.9.1975 the shares belonging to Mohammed Ismail, Mohammed Yusuff, Mohammed Ibrahim, Ibramsa and Abdul Wahab. Mohammed Yusuff is the son of Kasim Rowther, who, according to the plaintiff, had half share in the property. The other half share was belonging to Yacoob Rowther, the brother of Kasim Rowther., and on Yacoob's death, the devolved on his wife and children. According to the plaintiff, except the defendants, the other heirs of Yacoob Rowther joined the sale deed dated 22.9.1975, which was executed by Kasim Rowther's son Mohammed Yusuff.2. The defendants, who are Yacoob Rowther's wife, daughters and son, resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the property belonged to the defendants exclusively as their kudiyiruppu. Accordin...
Mount Plaza Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR750(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : '... to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. A. A. /MDS No. 8(159) 10/90-91, dated October 22, 1990, and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order and directing the first respondent to exercise the right of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the property situate at No. 601, Mount Road, Madras, or issue a 'no objection certificate' in respect thereof under section 269UL(1) and pass such further or other order or orders...' 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated October 22, 1990, stating that the case is not capable of being proceeded with further either to exercise the right of pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or to issue a 'no objection certificate' under section 269UL(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner, a company registered under the Comp...
Murali Match Works Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT546(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in A. No. E/353/88/Order No. 478/88, dated 7-10-1988 and quash the proceedings relating thereto and consequently direct the first respondent to redispose of the appeal on merits under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The impugned order is one wherein the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the said Tribunal and consequently rejected the stay petitions and appeals. Though the order has been passed in a batch of cases on behalf of more than one party, the writ petition before me has been filed by Murali Match Works and therefore, this writ petition is confined to consideration so far as the present petition is concerned. 3. The writ petitioner is a manufacturer of matches ...
Tamil Nadu Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC130; 1992(57)ELT51(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : '... to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the adjudication of the case arising out of the show cause notice No. C. No. V/24/15/118/89 CX. ADJ dated 6-12-1989 (Annexure 'F') issued by the first respondent without first summoning and without giving adequate opportunity to cross-examine the persons as requested by the petitioners in their letters dated 21-1-1991 and 25-3-1991 and pass such further or other orders...' 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a writ of prohibition could issue. 3. The brief facts are : The first petitioner Company carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in cigarettes and the second petitioner is one of the share-holders of the first petitioner Company. It is alleged in the affidavit filed...
Sri Bharathi Mills (Unit of Ntctn and P) and ors. Vs. N.S. Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ485
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P. No. 6056 of 1988 decided on 26.6.1991.2. The respondent-writ petitioner had put in issue the order of termination of his services by the appellants herein. A number of pleas were raised before the learned single judge in support of the writ petition. The learned single Judge, however, considered two basic aspects of the case and allowed the writ petition. The first question considered by the learned single judge was with regard to the alleged violation of Rule 25 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation, and the second question was that since the employer, while imposing the penalty of termination of service, had taken into account the objectionable past conduct of the employee without putting him to notice and without making the objectionable past conduct as a part of the charge memo, the termination was bad.3. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned Counsel for the appella...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›