Chennai Court November 1992 Judgments
Palaniammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2464
Venkataswami, J.1. The detenue, aggrieved by the detention as a bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, for her release. 2. The detention order was passed on the basis of Doctor's certificate. The question of law is covered by an earlier decision of this Court, about which there is no dispute by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, we need not set out the facts in detail. 3. The contention for challenging the detention order is like this : The Certificate given by the Medical Officer is general in nature, without giving specific opinion and, therefore, it vitiates the detention Order. 4. We find force in the above contention. In P. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1992 LW147, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view after referring to an earlier case but that unless there is a positive opinion from the Medical Officer about the quantum of atropine require...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ibrahim Vs. Ramzan Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC312
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. It is averred in the petition as follows :2. The petitioner herein married the respondent on 19-8-1992, subsequently, he divorced the respondent by pronouncement of 'Talaq' on 2-10-1987. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act' in M.C. No. 13 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate VI, Tirunelveli against the petitioner and prayed for a fair and reasonable provision towards maintenance during the period of Iddat' and return of the Mahr amount quantified in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, restoration of jewels valued at Rs. 33,000/, repayment of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and restoration of the utensils and articles valued at Rs. 10,000/-all alleged to have been given at the time of her marriage and for Rs. 50,000/- towards the further maintenance. Learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, fixed the maintenance amount for the period of 'Iddat'. viz., thre...
Tag this Judgment!Mina Parikh Vs. Pondicherry Planning Authority Represented by Its Memb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ550
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The parties in both the cases are the same. The petitioner's husband is the Chairman of a Public Limited Company by name East Coast Steel Limited having factory at Pondicherry. The petitioner applied for planning permission to build a farm house in the outskirts of Pondicherry. The application was made to the first respondent on 23.7.1990. A receipt was issued on the same date for acknowledging the receipt of charges, by the first respondent. On 10.1.1991, the petitioner received an order passed by the first respondent that the Pondicherry Tourism and Development Corporation had clarified that the land is situated is an area earmarked for Tourism Development and the application of the petitioner could not be considered. Immediately, the petitioner sent a reply on 17.1.1991, bringing to the notice of the authority that the building had almost been completed and it would not in any manner obstruct the scenery in the area and it has adequate drainage facilities. He a...
Tag this Judgment!Magdoom Sheriff Alias Sultan Sheriff Vs. Kancheepuram Municipality by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ262
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 101 of 1978 for declaration that the property tax assessment, by the defendant/municipality on him, dated 27.12.1977, with reference to the suit property is illegal and for consequential injunction. The said suit was decreed in his favour, but on appeal by the Municipality the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed holding that the enhanced assessment of property tax made by the said Municipality on 27.12.1977 was not illegal. The appellate Court also held that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 354 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.2. The main point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the assessment made on 27.12.1977, enhancing the property tax from Rs. 633-44 to Rs. 2,063-04 was not in accordance with Section 82(2) of the abovesaid Act, and the decision in Th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sankaralingam Vs. Arunachala Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ472
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second Appeal. The suit is for declaration of his title to the suit property and for consequential injunction or in the alternative for possession. The suit property is a vacant site measuring east to west 10 yards and south to north 23 yards and comprised in S. No. 183/1 (part) in Vellur village natham. The plaintiff claimed it under Ex. A-6 sale deed dated 27.3.1978 and according to him, his vendor Gopalakrishnan got the said properly under a registered settlement deed dated 22.1.1947, the registration copy of which is Ex.A-3, from one Thirumalaiammal. The plaintiff also sought title by adverse possession alternatively. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant/respondents is that the property being a natham property, vested with the Government and defendants were alone in possession of the property. Further, according to the defendants, the alleged settlement by Thirumalai Ammal could not be true and neither Thirumalaiammal...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ524
Bellie, J.1. The first two defendants viz. the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department are the appellants. The suit filed by the two plaintiffs under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', has been decreed and hence this appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the temple dedicated to Sri Chenroya Perumal in Dhattimanipalli village, Gudiyatham Taluk, which is a small village temple is an ancient one and the origin of it is not traceable. The temple is possessed of 1.60 acres in Survey No. 211/1 and 0.22 cents with 8 mango trees in Survey No. 74. The annual income from the properties would be Rs. 120. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have been doing pooja in the temple and also were managing the temple affairs. They are thus poojaris-cum-trustees of the temple. Long ago one Thandavaraya Gounder was poojari-cum-trustee of the temple and after his de...
Tag this Judgment!C. Mohammed Haneefa Vs. M. Mohammed Yusuf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas495(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai J.1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 1006 of 1991, 1004 of 1991, 1005 of 1991 and 1007 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai, invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the above proceedings. 2. The respondent in these petitions filed four complaints against the petitioners herein, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In that the cheques issued by the petitioner, when presented to the bank for collection, were returned unpaid for want of funds and despite the statutory notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment. The case had been taken on file and trial is yet to begin. 3. It is these complaints that are sought to be quashed. 4. Thiru S. Samuel Rajapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the complaints are false, that he himself has given a complaint against one Babjan in respect of these cheques and that the said complai...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohan Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1241Mad; (1993)IMLJ504
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated August 27, 1989 by which the petitioner has been removed from the services of the second respondent Board. The petitioner and one Kesavan were working as Assistants in the Besant Nagar Division of the second respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board, on October 14, 1985 both were arrested for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 150 from one Sriramkrishnan, for giving information regarding Flat No. 102/20 and the petitioner herein was kept under suspension pending inquiry, by an order of suspension dated October 18, 1985. A charge was framed against the petitioner under Service Regulation 37(b) of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Service Regulations, 1969, stating that the petitioner has demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 150 from one Sriramkrishnan for furnishing the details of the amount outstanding towards the Flat No. M. 102/20, Besant Nagar. An enquiry was conducted in which witnesses were exam...
Tag this Judgment!Subramani Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1885
Janarthanam, J. 1. The accused, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence in S.C. 142 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, has come forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are : a. Three estates going by the names Nithyakalyani, Shanmugha and Sakthi, stated to be belonging to different and distinct individuals, are situate adjacent to each other, within the territorial jurisdiction limits of Kadambarai Police Station. It is said to be 38 kms. away. The accused Subramani, one Chinnaswamy (since deceased) and P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is said are workers in Nithyakalyani estate. Staff and workers' quarters, it is said, had been provided within the estate. The quarters of accused and P.W. 3 are situate adjacent to each other in one block. The quarters of the deceased and P.W. 1 are situate in different block separated by two houses in between. The staff and workers' quarters, office bungalow and the guest house are all, it is said, situate in close quarters to each...
Tag this Judgment!M. Devarajulu Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ348Mad
ORDER1. These writ petitions, about 35 in number, have been filed by the petitioner, who is said to be a handling Contractor, challenging the common order dated November 26, 1991 in I.A.Nos. 1/91 etc. in P.G. Case Nos. 173/91, etc. passed by the 1st respondent, condoning the delay in filing the applications under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also in allowing the claim of the workers for the payment of gratuity, simultaneously, with a further direction that the amounts specified in the annexure to the said order be paid within 30 days from the date of order. 2. The workers, who are arrayed as the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions, respectively, claimed before the 1 st respondent that they were employed under the petitioner/management, as steel handling labourers with effect from Setember 1, 1976 and that their services were terminated for reasons not disclosed to them, on October 31, 1989 and consequently, they were obliged to submit applications under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »