Chennai Court February 1992 Judgments
Rukmani Devi Arundale Trust Represented by Its Secretary C.T. Nachiapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ41
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of interlocutory applications filed by the appellant for an injunction, and by the respondent for vacating the interim injunction. The appellant is indisputably the owner of the property in question. The appellant-trust appointed the respondent as an agent for taking care of its properties under a letter dated 18.10.1984 marked as Ex.P-1 in the case. The letter reads as follows:Be it known that I, hereby, authorise on behalf of the Rukmani Devi Arundale Trust, from this day, the 18th day of October, 1984, Mr. S. Easwaran, son of Sri E. Subramony, No. 85, Amman Sannadhi Street, Shencottah to be incharge as representative of the Trust and take such action he deems necessary to furtherance of the Trust lands comprised in Survey Nos. 511/1, 55/2 and 511/3 aggregating to 6.73 acres of Courtallam Revenue Village, Tenkasi Taluk of Tirunelveli District.It is not necessary to refer to other documents. But suffice it to point out that the appella...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Vadivelu Vs. R. Govindarajalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ341
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. The tenant of a non-residential building who was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller as well before the appellate Authority, has preferred this civil revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of both the authorities that he is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The respondent sought eviction mainly on two grounds viz., wilful default and bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. Acts of waste were also mentioned in passing. The case of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that there was no wilful default and further the building was not in a dilapidated condition needing demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand it was the case of the petitioner that the building was in a sound condition.2. Learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on both grounds namely, wilful default and bona fide requirement of the landlord of the building for demolition and reconst...
Tag this Judgment!E.V. Palanivelu and ors. Vs. Sri Krishna Talkies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ350
Kanakaraj, J.1. These two petitions have been posted for argument on the question of maintainability raised by the Registry. One application is for impleading the petitioner as a party to the O.S. Appeal and the second petition is for the direction to respondents 11 to 16 to execute a sale deed to and in favour of the petitioner as nominee of the first respondent. O.S. Appeal No. 179 of 1989 arises under the following circumstances; The appellants in O.S.A. No. 179 of 1989 (respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.P.), as owners of the land on which the cinema theatre (Sri Krishna Talkies) had been built filed O.S.No.471 of 1986 against the partners of the 'Sri Krishna Talkies' (respondents 7 to 21 in C.M.P.) for recovery of possession of the site. Respondents 7 to 21 as defendants claimed rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922. By an order dated 18.8.1988 this Court declared the right of respondents 7 to 21 to purchase the site. This order dated 18.8.1988 was taken up on appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kannappan Vs. Rajeswari Ammal, Wife of K. Balasundaram and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad134
1. This second appeal and the Civil Revision Petition have a common origin. The petitioner in the revision petition, who is the appellant in the second appeal, is the landlord and hereinafter, he will be referred to as such. The respondent in both the cases is the tenant, and he will be referred to as such in this judgment.2. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 84 of 968 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu uildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default and subletting. In the petition for eviction, the property is described by its door numbers and boundaries. The door numbers are mentioned as 75 and 76. The four boundaries are fully described.3. The tenant contested the petition on the ground that she had not committed wilful default in payment of rent and she had not sublet the premises as alleged by the landlord. She raised another objection that a single petition for eviction was not maintainable, a...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ranganathan Vs. P.R. Mohan Ram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad322
ORDER1. This revision is by the judgment-debtor/ 1st respondent in R.E. P. No. 25 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. The execution petition is for arrest of the petitioner with a view to realise the money decree obtained against him by the decree-holder-respondent herein. In the execution petition, initially notice was ordered to the judgment-debtor and he appeared before the Court and filed his counter. Then the execution Court passed an order of arrest inter alia stating, 'Means has been proved by affidavit. Hence the objection being untenable arrest the respondent by 31-12-1991'.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has repeatedly held that after the judgment-debtor appeared in court pursuant to the notice of arrest, the procedure prescribed under Order 21, R. 40, C.P.C. has to be followed. In other words, in such a situation the Court shall proceed to hear the decree-holder and take all such evidence as may be produced by him in suppo...
Tag this Judgment!T.N.V. Nanjappa Chettiar Vs. Devi Films (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas875(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. I.), Madras, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and to quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 for an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is a private limited company. The accused was one of the directors of the company till January 2, 1984. He was provided with residential accommodation at No. 16, Dr. Nair Road, T, Nagar, Madras, for his occupation and an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TMU 1085 by virtue of his being one of the directors of the company. He was removed from directorship of the company on January 2, 1984. On his ceasing to be a director of the company, he ought to have delivered possession of the house and car ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Soni Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3531
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner himself is the detenu. In this writ petition, he seeks for his release, after quashing the impugned order of detention dated 16-9-1991, passed against him by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. 2. Brief facts which led to the clamping of preventive detention, will have to be stated, for the disposal of this writ petition. The detenu and another were intercepted by the officers of Enforcement Directorate, Madras, on 9-8-1991. They were checking out from Hotel Kanchi. They carried a brief case and brown colour VIP suit case. They were searched, resulting in seizure of US dollars 43,550/-. Personal search of the detenu led to seizure of Rs. 6,600/- in Indian currency and certain documents including Hotel Bill. The con...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shivram Raghuram Singh Vs. the Director General of Health Services ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ216
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to admit the petitioner herein in D.C.H. Two years course (Diploma in Child Health) for the academic year 1991 in any one of the Medical Colleges with residenship and stipend where D.C.H. Course is recognised by the Medical Council of India, as the petitioner having been selected for the D.C.H. Course by the first respondent on merit basis as per order No. U.12020/1/91, M.E.C., dated 2.5.1991. The petitioner after passing the M.B.B.S. Degree applied for the selection of Post Graduate Course before the second respondent herein and wrote an entrance examination in the month of January 1991. The petitioner applied for (1) M.D. Paediatrics, (2) Diploma in Child Health and (3) M.D. (Anaesthesia) according to order of preference and opted for the courses whi...
Tag this Judgment!Deluxe Road Lines Represented by Its Partner, Kushalchand B. Shah Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ481
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is bound to pay a rent of Rs. 1,225 per mensem as tenant in premises No. 243, ground-floor, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras The respondent filed the petition for eviction alleging that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for four months from August, 1981 to November, 1981. The petition was presented on 18th January, 1982. The petitioner contested the same stating that he was paying rent regularly and there was no wilful default on his part. With regard to the period in question, he stated that he paid the rent for August, 1981 on 19.9.1981 to the respondent's son, who returned it on 26.2.1981 directing the petitioner to pay it to the respondent himself. On 5.10.1991, the petitioner paid the rent for August and Se...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Mohammad Shereef and Co. and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC284
S. Nainar Sundaram, Ag. C.J.1. The ultimate point which the learned single Judge was called upon to concentrate in substance while dealing with the cases of the appellants herein was, whether the dale of release for sale of the Gazette, containing the notification of withdrawal of exemption at New Delhi is the relevant date to be taken into consideration for the enforceability of the notification or the date on which the Gazette notification was made known to the public at various locale, wherever the traders are to be found. The learned single Judge opened that the date on which the Gazette containing the Notification is released for sale at New Delhi is relevant. It is not as if the subject is a new one that has come up before this Court. In Asia Tobacco Co. v. Union of India : [1985]155ITR568(Mad) , one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J., as he then was) has expressed the view that the date when the public gets notified in the sense, the concerned Gazette is made available to the public cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »