Chennai Court January 1992 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.
Common Wealth Insurance Co. (Now Known as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC371
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The third defendant-Insurance Company which had insured the first defendant's (second respondent's) lorry, is the appellant in this appeal against the decree for compensation of Rs. 26,000/- with interest granted by the trial Court in O.S. No. 108 of 1975 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. The decree is against the appellant alone for the damage caused to the abovesaid lorry and its contents, in a motor accident that took place on 8.4.72. The accident took place pursuant to collision between the abovesaid second respondent's lorry driven by the third respondent-driver and the plaintiff's (first respondent's) lorry which was insured by the fourth defendant-(fourth respondent) Insurance Company.2. Now, the appeal is only against the first respondent plaintiff (claimant), since pursuant to earlier orders the appeal stands dismissed against the other respondents in view of the non-prosecution by the appellant. In this appeal the following three submissio...
Sree Aravindh Steel (P.) Ltd. Vs. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas607(Mad); (1998)1CompLJ451(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. Company Petition No. 69 of 1991 was filed by Sree Aravindh Steel Private Limited under section 433(e) and (f) read with sections 434(1)(a) and 439(b) of the Companies Act (1 of 1956), directing the respondent. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Limited (in short 'TSRM'), to be wound up under the provisions of the Act and to appoint the official liquidator to take possession of the assets of the company and for directing TSRM Limited to deposit a sum of Rs. 57,39,464 in this court or directing the said company to furnish a bank guarantee for the said sum and for costs. 2. Pending disposal of the main company petition, Aravindh Steel Private Limited filed Company Application No. 1028 of 1991 to direct TSRM Limited to deposit a sum of Rs. 57,39,464 in this court or to direct TSRM Limited to furnish a bank guarantee for the said sum or, in the alternative, to appoint the official liquidator as provisional liquidator to take charge of its assets and affairs and be in charge of the ...
Jubedabai and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ479
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The properties involved in these proceedings belonged to the family of one Narayanasami Pillai. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the heirs of Venkatesan Pillai, brother of Narayanasami Pillai. Venkatesan Pillai, filed a suit for partition which was numbered as Affair No. 431 of 1962 against Narayanasami. A preliminary decree was passed on 28.4.1967. Narayanasami Pillai died on 20.10.1967. But, he had executed a will and registered it on 11.3.1966 bequeathing the property to one Balaraman, his grandson. Balaraman was brought on record as the legal representative of Narayanasami Pillai in the final decree proceedings. A final decree was passed on 31.3.1977 allotting the properties now in dispute to Venkatesan's branch. Venkatesan having died in the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 herein were brought on record as his legal representatives. Thus, in the final decree, the properties in question have been allotted to respondents 1 and 2.2. In execution of the decree, respo...
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Retired Officials Association, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ481
S. Nainar Sundaram, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.5023 of 1988 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.2. The petitioner came to this Court asking for a writ of declaration that the action of the respondent in not giving credit to 50 per cent work charged service and the entire O.S.S. service of the employees who retired before 20.8.1979 for purpose of pension is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondent to count the same also for the members of the petitioner, who retired from service before 20.8.1979. In view of the limited scope of the controversy in this writ appeal, there is no need to tread upon the merits of the case, suffice it to state the learned single Judge was inclined to countenance the g...
P.D. Yudhistar Vs. M/S. P. Mittulal Lalah and Sons and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad36
1. The plaintiff who has lost his case in the trial Court is the appellant. The suit is for rendition of accounts.2. It appears that plaintiff and the second defendant were partners of a firm. By mutual agreement the firm was dissolved on 2-8-1976 and for the share of the plaintiff he was paid a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- subsequently the second defendant along with the third defendant reconstituted the partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. P. Mittulal Lalah & Sons which is impleaded as the first defendant.The plaintiff came to know that subsequent to the dissolution, in respect of the exports effected by the said dissolved firm from' the period from 15-10-1970 to 31-7-1976 the first defendant-firm has received cash incentives from the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports. This cash incentive has not been taken into account when the firm was dissolved. The defendants are liable to account to the plaintiff in respect of this cash incentive received and pay him 50% of the ...
Thirumangalam Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ886Mad
ORDER1. The second respondent was employed as a night watchman in the petitioner bank. On February 28, 1981, he was on duty as night watchman. The second respondent along with one Ramadoss had consumed liquor and because the second respondent was in a drunken state, he was dropped by the said Ramadoss within the premises of the Bank and the gate of the bank premises was locked. It is stated that the second respondent was in a state of undress and had created an unruly scene. On account of his behaviour a large crowd had gathered outside the Bank gate and they witnessed the conduct of the second respondent.2. On April 15, 1981, charge memo was issued to the second respondent. He submitted his explanation on April 17, 1981. A domestic enquiry was conducted. As many as seven witnesses were examined in the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the second respondent guilty of the charges and on a careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the provisional conclusion wa...
Krishna theatre, by Its Licensee Vs. the Appellate Authority and Joint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ32
ORDERRaju, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in D.Dis. (L) CA. No. 179 of 1988 dated 19.12.1991 and of-the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.E4/90654 of 1988 dated 16.11.1988.2. The petitioner is a licensee of a cinema theatre at Vellore. On 15.7.1988, when the theatre of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the Commercial Tax Department, it was found that persons in excess of permitted capacity, were admitted into the theatre with admission tickets not duly sealed by the Department, and consequently, action was initiated against the petitioner for such an irregularity, and it appears, that the petitioner compounded the offence under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 by paying Rs. 1,000 and also a similar amount for the violations under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961. Thereupon the licensing authority, the 2nd respondent, after...
M. Reethammal and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ440
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. W.P.No.11762 of 1989 is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant with effect from 23.8.1987 and consequently pay all the arrears of salary.2. W.P.No.6693 of 1990 is filed by the petitioner college, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.No.11762 of 1989, for the issuance of a writ of declaration to direct that Rule 11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Rules framed under Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires Constitution of India, illegal and void in so far as the petitioner's institution, which claims as a minority institution, is concerned.3. The short facts are: The petitioner is W.P. No. 11762 of 1989, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.No.6693 of 1990, has joined St. Jude's College (the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 1 1762 of 1989) as Typist in the year 1979. It is stated that she has passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I and she is fully qualified to ho...
Kumarasami Pillai Vs. Palani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad318
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the dismissal of the application for amendment of the plaint. It is seen that the petitioner herein has filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the allegation that the suit property originally belonged to his mother by virtue of purchase from one Adam Sahib and she was in possession till her death which look place 50 years ago. According to him, after the demise of his mother, himself and his two brothers and two sisters were jointly enjoying the property. At the time of drafting the plaint, it was stated that after the death of his mother, he and his brothers were enjoying the property as they became entitled to the property as heir of Manickammal. He filed the suit for himself and on behalf of his brothers. In the prayer column, the declaration has to be sought for in favour of the plaintiff, his brothers and two sisters and since it is omitted to be included in the plaint, the amendment is absolutely necessary...
V. Thangappan Vs. Tamilnadu Industrial Insurance Corpn.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC352; 1993ACJ1276; (1993)IILLJ483Mad
1. The court below has taken the view that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to make a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in view of the fact that he has already availed of the benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act. The court below has followed the judgments of this Court in Mangallamma v. Express New Papers Ltd., : AIR1982Mad223 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Saraswathi Mohan : AIR1982Mad371 . The former is a decision of a Division Bench and the latter is that of a single Judge. In both the cases, it has been held on a construction of Section 53 of the Act, that, if the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the said Act, he is barred rom claiming any compensation under any other law including the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Learned Counsel submits that in the present case, the claimant was proceeding to his work spot on his own bicycle and the accident could not be considered to have taken place in the course of his employment. He places relianc...