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.
M.V. Balu Vs. the Chairman, Tamilnadu Housing Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ532
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certioranfied mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 27.12.1983 in his proceedings Ref. No. DC3/74352/80 and to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.2. On 22.8.1980, at about 3.30 p.m., Thiru L. Vinayagam, Building Inspector of Madurai Special Division accompanied by the Assistant Engineer Thiru Jayachandran, complained to the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Madurai that he was beaten up by chappal by the Watchman Thiru V. Gurusamy and that he was threatened with a knife by the petitioner, while he was engaged in unloading steel rods at Ellis Nagar store-yard. The Executive Engineer immediately went to the spot with two Assistant Executive Engineers Thiru R. Sundaram and Thiru S.Elango. When they entered the scheme area, they found the petitioner lying on the ground fully drunk and in a unconscious state. In the above circumstances, the foll...
Bhavunambal and ors. Vs. N. Selvam Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ479
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two revisions are directed by the unsuccessful tenants before both the forums below against the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to stop proceedings and also the consequential order of eviction passed in the main R.C.O.P.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two revisions are as follows: The respondent herein (Landlord) filed R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1987 against the tenant Sankar Chettiar (who died and whose legal representatives are the revision-petitioners) under Sections l0(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1986 till December, 1986, for 5 months and also for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building is aged about 80 years and requires demolition and reconstruction. The said petition was resisted by the tenant. When the enquiry was pending...
Dharmapuri District Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. P. Viswanathan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ359Mad
1. The first respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 asking the Labour Court to compute the money value of the emoluments payable to him in the clerical post Grade I. The case of the first respondent was that he was an employee of the appellant society and he was promoted by an order, dated July 8, 1979, on a scale of pay of Rs. 405-8-445-ED-12-601-14-643 and that the appellant was not paying the emoluments due to him under the said grade. The appellant filed a counter statement, admitting the order of promotion given on July 8, 1979, by the Special Officer of the Society, but contending that the said order had not been given effect to. It was also stated that there were procedural irregularities in the promotion order, dated July 8, 1979, and that the appellant was disputing the enforcement of the said order. Consequently it was submitted that the claim being a disputed one, could not be agitated under Section 33-C(2) of the Industria...
Rainbow Colour Vs. the Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC88
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of both parties. The petitioner purchased on high seas basis 5000 rolls of Konica Colour Negative Film for exporting the same. Even before the arrival of the goods, the foreign buyer had opened necessary export letter of credit and the same was also filed along with the bills of entry bearing Nos. 24362, 24363, 24364, 24365, 24366, 24368, 24369, 24372, 24377 and 24394 dated 16.7.1992. The petitioner wanted to warehouse the goods. The customs authorities also made an endorsement on the bills of entry that they are intended for re export as per public notice 18-ITC (PH) 9-CUS-(N.T) No. 10/92 dated 11.2.1992. (sic)2. But, however the authority insisted upon the petitioner paying 50% of the duty assessed on the goods as per Section 59-A of the Customs Act. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the same contending that his goods fall under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act and not under Section 61(1)(b) of ...
Arumugham Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ520
Janarthanam, J.1. Accused 1, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 30 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, Salem, came forward with the present appeal. 2. The brief facts are :- (a) One Chithra, aged 9 (since deceased), was the daughter of P.W. 1, a resident of Selliyam Palayam, situate within the jurisdiction of Karippatti Police Station. Her father P.W. 1 is a mason, Her mother is P.W. 2. Her brother is by name Kadirvelu alias Raja. The deceased and her brother, it is said, had been studying in the village school. P.W. 2's wife's sister's daughter is P.W. 3. She had been residing with her parents at Madras and studying there. Accused 1 is the elder sister's son of P.W. 1 P.W. 2 caused ear studs (M.O. 1 series) to be made for her daughter the deceased with the help of the goldsmith, P.W. 17, on conversion of an old jewel belonging to her mother-in-law. (b) The deceased's brother Raja, it is said, had been to Sanarpatti to a house of his relation, obviously for spen...
Mariappan and Another Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ749
Thangamani, J.1. The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in SC No. 87 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2. They were charged under section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 21-2-1985 at about 2.00 p.m. near Pannaikinar Harijan Colony in furtherance of their common intention to cause the death of one Nachimuthu Gounder they beat him with hands, pushed him down and trampled on his chest and as a result of the injuries sustained, in the assault, the said Nachimuthu Gounder died at 2.40 p.m. on 23-2-1985 in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses filed 15 Exhibits and marked 4 Material Objects. On the side of the appellants 3 Exhibits were marked. These facts emerge from the evidence on record :- Deceased Nachimuthu Gounder was residing with his wife P.W. 1 Thirumathal in a garden shed in the village Kozhikuttai. There was a complaint of theft against him in Gudimangalam Police Station Cr...
Leo Francis Xaviour Vs. the Principal, Karunya Institute of Technology ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad233
ORDER1. The petitioner is a III year student in B.E., Civil Engineering Course, in Karunya Institute of Techonology, Coimba-tore, the Principal of which is the first respondent. The second respondent is the Registrar, Bharathiyar University, Coimba-tore. The petitioner is challenging the order made by the the first respondent on 8-9-1992 expelling him from the College and the hostel for indulging in ragging the I Year students, beating the students in uncultured way, using abusive words against them, showing obscene pictures and threatening them for the consequences, thereby giving mental and physical torture to the 1 Year students.2. At the outset it should be mentioned that the second respondent is wholly unnecessary to this petition. The second respon-dent has nothing to do whatever with the impugned order passed by the first respondent. No relief has been prayed for by the petitioner against the second respondent. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not disclos...
Gomu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1272
Thangamani, J.1. The appeal against he conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under S. 302, I.P.C. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 49 of 1985 on his file. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7-8-1984 at about 9 a.m. in front of the shop of P.W. 2 Gomathi Devar in Veerasigamani village the appellant Gomu caused the death of the Ganesan by stabbing him with a knife. 3. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses filed 18 Exhibits and Marked 9 Material Objects. Of the witness examined P.W. 1 Murugaiya and P.W. 3 Kailsamoopanar turned hostile. The evidence disclosed those facts :- Deceased Ganesan is the maternal uncle of the appellant Gomu. They are residents of Veerasingamani village. P.W. 7 Avudaiammal is the wife of deceased Ganesan. Her mother in law wanted to gift away their house to her daughter who is the mother of the appellant Gomu. Ganesan was demanding his mother to give one third share to him in this house. On account of this Gomu used t...
S. Narayana Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1303
1. The accused in Special Case No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Nagercoil, is the appellant. The accused was working as Revenue Inspector in Nagercoil Municipality. He was charged for offences under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had received a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of illegal gratification from Narayanan, P.W. 1 (Rs. 50/- for himself and Rs. 50/- for the Bill Collector, in all Rs. 100/-) by misusing his position as a public servant, promising to P.W. 1 that he would not raise the house tax. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 11 and marked Ex. P. 1 to 17 and M.Os. 1 to 3. The accused has examined one Shanmugham as D.W. 1 and marked Ex. D. 1 to D. 3 on his side. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accu...
Jayarama Naidu and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ634
ORDERMishra, J.1. First and second petitioners (two brothers), third petitioner (son of the first petitioner) and 4th and 5th (minor daughters of the first petitioner) have filed the instant petition praying to quash the proceedings for acquisition of lands to provide house sites to Adi Dravidas of Irumbai village in South Arcot District. They have stated that their lands in R.S. Nos. 64/3B and 64/4B in Irumbai village have been notified in G.O.Ms. No. 2556, Social Welfare, dated 13.10.1983 and published in Part 3, Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 9.11.1983. In the said notification, Government only mentioned names of the first petitioner and third petitioner, that the names of the other petitioners have been omitted and not mentioned and,There was no proper publication of Section 4 notification in the village or in the vicinity of lands sought to be acquired. There was no issue of notice under Rule 38 of the Land Acquisition Rules framed under Land Acquisition Act to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »