Chennai Court November 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.
V. Ganesan Vs. Sakthimani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ258
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit O.S. No. 87 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram for a declaration that the order dated 17.10.1973 of the 2nd defendant Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, is not valid and for consequential injunction.2. The abovesaid order of the 2nd defendant directed reinstatement of the 1st defendant in the employment of the plaintiffs school as teacher therein. The suit was dismissed and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. The suit was dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 53 and 54 read with Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The brief facts are as follows: The plaintiff, who runs the school in question in which the 1st defendant was a teacher, framed as many as 14 charges against the 1st defendant and referred the matter to the Deputy...
K. Raju Vs. M. Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ518
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plain tiff is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S. No. 13 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. According to the plaintiff, he was the tenant for five years from 20.1.1974 under the 1st defendant-1st respondent, of the suit land and has put up the superstructure thereon and the 2nd defendant-2nd respondent was looking after the tea stall run by the plaintiff therein, but the 1st defendant unlawfully dispossessed him by getting back possession from the 2nd defendant on 21.3.1978. Hence he sought for re-delivery in the suit O.S. No. 185 of 1978.2. According to the 1st defendant, there was no lease for five years, the plaintiff was only a monthly tenant, and since the plaintiff had sub-leased the premises to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff ceased to be a tenant and the 2nd defendant had voluntarily delivered possession to the 1st defendant. According to the 2nd defendant, he was lessee under the plaintiff, on 21...
Brooke Bond India Limited Vs. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ132
Mishra, J.1. The appellant's application for an interim injunction restraining the defendant/ respondent from committing any infringement of its copyright in the artistic work filed as document Nos. 1 and 2 along with the plaint till the disposal of the suit, its application for an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trade mark Nos. 301187 and 250152 in Clause 30 filed as document Nos. 3 and 4 till the disposal of the suit; its application for an injunction restraining the defendant from passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff/appellant using the impugned label; and its application under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent for leave to combine the causes of action for infringement of trade mark and for passing off along with the suit for infringement of copyright have been dismissed by common order by a learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant herein has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and preferred these appeals.2. Since the learned single Judg...
Avudaithangammal Vs. Petchimuthupandia thevar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ439
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These two second appeals are by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi. In the said suit, the plaintiff got the decree for partition and separate possession of her half share and for 'mesne profits' thereof. The said decree was confirmed in the first appeal A.S. No. 177 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and also by this Court in S.A. No. 14 of 1973. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the present interlocutory applications out of which these second appeals have arisen. In I.A. No. 1443 of 1973 the plaintiff claimed mesne profits of Rs. 7,037.50 with reference to nine crops, i.e. from Pishanam 1969 to Pishanam 1973. The next I.A. No. 264 of 1979 was filed claiming mesne profits of Rs. 40,517.30 for 10 crops during the subsequent period, i.e. from Kar 1973 to Kar 1978. The trial court in the former interlocutory application granted a decree only for Rs. 4,000. In the latter interlocutory application, the decree by th...
Amsath Ansari Jawahar and anr. Vs. S. Sikkandar Batcha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ370
Mishra, J.1. The petition to condone delay of several years in filing a memo of cross-objection has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. He has accordingly dismissed the memo of cross-objection. He has also dismissed a petition for adding proposed parlies as respondents 6 to 10 in the appeal A.S. No. 148 of 1984 which is filed against the decree of the Court of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai (in O.S. No. 316 of 1980). He has also rejected the application for interim injunction against the 1st respondent (1st defendant) in the suit and the proposed respondents. These appeals have been filed against the order common to all these petitions. The plaintiff/ appellant filed the original suit for partition of certain properties between the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit. While the suit was pending it appears that Land Acquisition proceedings started with respect to item No. 7 of 'C Schedule properties in the suit. It was contended before the trial c...
Ramalakshmi Alias Ranjitham Vs. Janaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ617
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against an order dismissing the plaintiffs application before the trial court to reopen the case. 2. It appears the dispute in the case relates to an alleged will. The court informed the counsel for the plaintiff that for proof of the Will all the witnesses shall be examined on the same day. The counsel for the plaintiff examined one attestor to the Will and made an endorsement on the plaint that the evidence for the plaintiff is closed. But after a week a petition has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that the counsel has made the said endorsement in advertently and that the plaintiff has to examine another attesting witness and the scribe and therefore the case may be reopened. This petition was dismissed. Hence this revision. 3. I do not think that the order of the trial court can be interfered with. When the counsel has made the endorsement he knew all the implications thereof. Therefore there is no point in sa...
Koil Pillai Vs. Territorial Command or Territorial Head Quarters, Salv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Mad27; (1993)IIMLJ117
ORDER1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the trial Court. The suit properties originally belonged to the appellant and three others. They endowed the same under the original of Ex. A-1 dated 27-4-1944 by way of trust to the Salvation Army for the purpose of organising and conducting congregation prayers in the mode and manner then being practised by the Christian community of Sambavaryadakarai. The then members of the Salvation Army also agreed to have the building conveyed to the Salvation Army so that the Christian paradhana as was then practised by the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai may be conducted and continued in the premises as before. The respondents/defendants representing the Salvation Army are now in possession of the property. The practice of Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai consisted among others the following of baptism by immersion on personal confession of faith and the commemoration of the Lord's death in the breaking of bread on the first day of the...
Y. Jayalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR369(Mad)
K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This petition is filed for stay of all further proceedings in E. O. C. C. No. 115 of 1986 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. 2), Madras, pending disposal of the petition to the CIT for compounding the charges against the petitioner. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing learned standing counsel for the IT Department drew my attention to the decision of this Court reported in Kamala Ganesan vs . ITO : [1992]198ITR152(Mad) , wherein this Court, after relying on the earlier decision of the apex Court, held as follows : 'Held, that the questions whether the petitioners were directors or not and whether they were principal officers were questions of fact which the trial Court alone could consider. The High Court could not receive additional evidence in the form of the memorandum and articles of association of the company and give a finding on facts in proceedings under s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Merely because a petiti...
Koil Pillai Vs. Territorial Commandor, Territorial Head Quarters, Salv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ117
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the trial court. The suit properties originally belonged to the appellant and three others. They endowed the same under the original of Ex.A-1 gift deed dated 27.4.1944 by way of trust to the Salvation Army for the purpose of organising and conducting congregation prayers in the mode and manner then being practised by the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai. The then members of the Salvation Army also agreed to have the building conveyed to the Salvation Army so that the Christian aradhana as was then practised by the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai may be conducted and continued in the premises as before. The respondents/defendants representing the Salvation Army are now in possession of the property. The practice of Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai consisted among others the following of baptism by immersion on personal confession of faith and the commemoration of the Lord's death in the breaking of bread on the...
T.S. Ramaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ545
1. The accused in S.C. No. 16 of 1985 on the file of the learned First Additional Special Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant. The accused was a Health Inspector, Southern Railway, Coimbator junction. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was found guilty by the lower court under both counts and under Section 161, I.P.C. he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 and 10 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.19 and M.Os. 1 to 5. The accused has examined one Manickam as D.W. 1 and marked Exs. D.1 to D.5. 3. P.W. 1 Selvan was a cleaner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »