Chennai Court September 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. Nandakumar Vs. the Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ493
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the claimant is against the dismissal of his M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 773 of 1988 of the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes), Madras.2. In the said claim petition the appellant petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 on the ground that he was injured in the motor accident that took place on 15.11.1987 at 9.45 P.M. According to him, he was going in a motor cycle, east to west on the road in question and the respondent's but TML 8774 came in the opposite direction and hit against his motor cycle and caused severe injuries to him and despite the fact that he had to take treatment as inpatient till 2.12.1987, he remained handicapped and disabled, etc., the respondent-Corporation denied that its driver was negligent and contended that only the appellant was negligent. Though the tribunal observed that if compensation could be awarded to the claimant, it could be fixed at Rs. 50,900 it found ...
P. Somasundaram Vs. A. Ponnusamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad71
1. These two appeals arise out of execution proceedings in two suits between the same parties the Judgment debtors in both the suits are the same and the Court auction purchaser in both the cases is the same. In C.M.A. No. 806 of 1990, the property was brought to sale in E.P. No. 47 of 1987 in O.B. No. 1767 of 1985, The amount due under the decree is stated in the proclamation is Rs. 39,774.09. The property was brought to sale on 2-11-1988. Two items were intended to be sold. The first lot comprising of a house and ground was valued by the decree-holder at Rs. 50,000/- and by the Court at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The second lot was valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- by the decree-holder and Rs. 10 lakhs by the Court.2. The other appeal arises out of E.P. No. 49 of 1987 in O.S. No. 1769 of 1985. The amount due under the decree as stated in the proclamation is Rs. 80,334.98. The same two items which are proceeded against in E.P.No. 47 of 1987 arc also proceeded against in these execution proceedings. The v...
S. Anbarasan Vs. University of Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad271
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an order of the University of Madras (1st respondent) dated 27-1-90 by which his result in B.E. Degree Examination in April, 1989 is treated as cancelled.2. The petitioner joined the second respondent college in 1985 in Civil Engineering. Due to shortage in attendance, he was not allowed to appear for the Examination, and the petitioner came by way of writ petition No. 5252 of 1989 before this Court, and by order in W.M.P. No. 7702 of 1989, the petitioner was alleged to write the Final Examination commencing on 17-4-89, and it was made clear in that order that the results of the Examination should await the decision of the 1st respondent on the representation to be made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent explaining certain facts. In pursuance of that, the petitioner made representation on 2-5-89 and 13-7-89. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was really attending to the project work, and if those days are taken into account, he will ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kanthimathy Plantations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR742(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The Revenue is in revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated May 7, 1981. The controversy in the revision is limited to the proceeds amounting to Rs. 4,46,795. According to the assessee-respondents, the sale proceeds are in the nature of capital receipts derived from the sale of old and uneconomic trees. On behalf of the Revenue what was contended before the authorities below, including the Tribunal, was that latex was capable of being extracted and the proceeds included the cost of extracted latex also. The Tribunal, considering the agreement between the assessee-company and M/s. Union Traders, came to the conclusion that the agreement which had been entered into as early as in 1975, went on to show that the plantations which were sold after cutting were 'almost dry and no latex again was available'. The Tribunal noticed that the plantations were made in 1943-44 and for the assessment year in question, the tree...
Toshniwal Instruments Madras Vs. Toshniwal Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Bombay and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad74; (1992)IIMLJ68
1. This appeal is directed u/S. 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras in an application filed u/Ss. 46 and 56 of the Act for rectification of a Registered Trade Mark. The rectification prayed for has been ordered by the Assistant Registrar.2. The application for rectification was filed by 'Toshniwal Brothers Private Limited' and it was filed against 'Toshniwal Instruments Madras'. The rectification sought for was ordered by the Assistant Registrar. As against that Toshniwal Instruments Madras have filed this appeal. They will be hereinafter called the registered proprietors. The respondent-Toshniwal Brothers Private Limited will be hereinafter called the applicants.3. The case of the applicants is that they are a leading company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and are engaged since 1948 as sole selling agents in the sale and distribution of Scientific and Technical Instruments and App...
S. Prasanna Vs. R. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas522(Mad)
S. Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C. C. No. 894 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, has filed this petition, under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C. C. No. 894 of 1991 and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner arraying him as the accused. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The accused wanted a certain amount as hand loan. The complainant agreed and gave a hand loan. The accused promised to return the borrowed amount in stages and parted with post-dated cheques. One of the cheques, dated DEcember 24, 1990, issued by the accused for Rs. 36,250 was presented for encashment on January 11, 1991. It was returned with an endorsement 'account closed' with a bank memo, dated January 18, 1991. The complainant sent a notice through a lawyer on January 19, 1991, to the accused by registered post with acknowledgment due. It was returned with an endors...
C. Balakrishnan Vs. Superintending Engineer, Generation/Hydro Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: [1990(65)FLR813]
ORDER1. The petitioner has been working as a Switch Board Attender in the Moyar Power House. While he was so working as a Switch Board Attender, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Moyar Power House, Moyar Camp P.O. issued Memo No. F.32/R. 3655/81 dated January 5, 1982 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on the complaint made by the Assistant Divisional Electrical/Shift dated December 16, 1981. The charges of the said complaint were that the petitioner did not obtain the permission of the Operator before the petitioner left the Central Floor on December 15, 1981 at 18-25 hours and that secondly, the petitioner did not clause the cooling water system of Power Transformer III to 50% and took bath near the transformer on the same day at the same time, which, according to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, amounts to wilful act of tampering with the safety of Power Transformer, which the petitioner was supposed to safeguard. 2. In reply to the said memorandum, ...
Onondaga Agro Investments (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ462
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 4887 and 4888 of 1991 are filed by M/s. Onondaga Agro Investments (P) Ltd., W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 are filed byM/s. Onondaga Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd., Kodaikanal.2. W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated 22.2.1991 refusing to grant permission/licence to the petitioner for the construction of residential buildings on the lands belonging to the petitioner in S.No.108 Part Upper Lake Road, Kodaikanal as per the application dated 11.2.1991. W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 are filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to grant licence/permission to the petitioner for the construction of buildings on the petitioner's lands situate in S.No.108 Part Upper Lake Road, Kodaikanal as per the application dated 11.2.1991 filed under Sections 191 to 208of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920.3. The s...
TuticorIn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CochIn Silicate an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ376
Mishra, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent is directed against the order in Application No. 1627 of 1989 refusing leave under Clause 12 thereof to sue in this Court, the defendants for recovery in a sum of Rs. 3,43,726-30. The plaintiff/appellant has alleged that most part of the cause of action for the suit has arisen within the city of Madras. The defendants, however, have said that the entire cause of action has arisen only at Cochin and not in Madras. Learned single Judge, Srinivasan, in his impugned judgment has said; In my opinion, it is not necessary to consider whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the City of Madras. I propose to decide the matter on the assumption that part of the cause of action has arisen within the City of Madras. 2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which speaks about the original jurisdiction as to suits, runs as follows:And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its Ord...
Annamalai Nadar and anr. Vs. D. Thangamoney and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ611
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These two revisions stand posted before us as a Bench because a question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority was raised and the learned single Judge who Was earlier seized of these two revisions, deemed fit to refer them to a Bench.2. Before we take up the question of jurisdiction, it will be appropriate if we trace as to how these revisions have come to be preferred to this Court. The tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act, are the petitioners in these two revisions. The respondents are the landlords within the meaning of the Act. The landlords sought the eviction of the premises in question for demolition and re-construction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Controller dismissed the petitions for eviction. The landlords preferred appeals and they were heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, Ramanathapuram District as the...