Chennai Court March 1992 Judgments
Ms. Esther Kavitha Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad359
ORDER1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:'to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondent to give one seat in Diploma Course in Cinematography conducted by Film and T.V. Institute of Tamil Nadu for the petitioner in the academic year 1991-92 and pass such further or other order as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.'2. The petitioner, who belongs to backward community, after completing the Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1991, applied for the admission for the Diploma Course in Cinematography for the academic year 1991-92. It seems the petitionergot an interview card and she was called for an interview before the Selection Committee on 18-11-1991. After the interview, it seems, in the interview she was not asked any question. But it was alleged that she was asked how did she come to know Mr. Ashok Kumar, a famous Cincmatographer as Cinematography apprent...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Mahesh Vs. B
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC334; (1992)IIMLJ444
Lakshmanan, J.1. The above original petition was filed Under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to permit the petitioner,father of the minors, Miss Usha Lakshmi and Miss Aruna, to offer the vacantlands admeasuring approximately 1 1/2 grounds situate of No. 24, ArunachalamRoad, Saligramam, Madras, beinging to the minors as collateral security byway of equitable mortgage to Indian Bank, Saligramam Branch, Madras,against the additional working capital limit of Rs. 20 lakhs sanctioned by thesaid Bank and for other consequential orders.2. On 24.1.1992, the Original Side of this Court placed the entirepapers before me for consideration and orders as to numbering the originalpetition. According to the office note, this Court has no jurisdiction to decideand that petition Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956has got to be filed only before the City Civil Court and that this Court need notentertain this petition. The office has also placed be...
Tag this Judgment!indo-swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC31; 1992(59)ELT345(Mad)
ORDER1. The Petitioner in all these writ petitions is the same. The Petitioner has filed these writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 1,46,918.81 being the amount collected as additional duty or countervailing duty under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff on Bill of Entry No. D. 1211 dated 28-4-1982 (W.P. No. 2914/1984); Rs. 31,195.78 on Bill of Entry No. D. 1212 dated 22-3-1980 (W.P. No. 2915/84); Rs. 1,66,281.81 on Bill of Entry No. D. 262 dated 5-7-1982 (W.P. No. 2916/84); Rs. 26,648.16 on Bill of Entry D. 1105 dated 19-12-1980 (W.P. No. 2947/84) and Rs. 26,648.16 on Bill of Entry D. 1106 dated 19-12-1980 (W.P. No. 2948/84). 2. The Petitioner is a manufacturer of synthetic gems having its factory at Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. The Petitioner imported silica crucibles under a valid import licence from France. The Petitioner filed Bill of Entries D. 1211, D. 1212, D. 262, D. 1105 and D. 1106. The Assistant Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Sugesan and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC5; 1993LC214(Madras); 1992(62)ELT10(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent or his subordinates to renew the C.K.A. Licence No. R-64 of the petitioner for a period of 3 years from 14-7-1989 to 13-7-1992. 2. The petitioner is a Custom House Clearing Agent and has been carrying on business of clearing and shipment by virtue of the licence No. R-64, as is claimed by the petitioner for past 65 years. On 30-10-1984, his licence has been suspended pending enquiry and that ultimately the licence was also revoked on 8-1-1986. The said licence had its due term till 13-7-1986. In March, 1986, the petitioner filed WP 1453/86 to quash the order of revocation and by an order dated 3-4-1987, the said writ petition was allowed. The respondent herein who was the respondent in the writ petition filed writ Appeal 768 of 1987 and also filed C.M.P. 8676/87 for stay. The Division Bench by its order dated 4-8-1987 rejected the said application. In such circumstances, the respondent issued...
Tag this Judgment!K. Usha Vs. Indian Bank Represented by Its Chairman and Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ366
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :.to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions and in particular issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the first respondent-Bank to provide the petitioner forthwith compassionate appointment on account of the demise of her husband.... 2. The petitioner's husband one Balakrishnan was working as a clerk in the Head Office of the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd., Thanjavur and unfortunately he died on 25.3.1989 after having put in 20 years of service in that Bank leaving behind him, the petitioner, (his wife) and a daughter. The Bank of Thanjavur got amalgamated with the first respondent-Bank. In the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Limited employment was given to the dependant of an employee who died in harness. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application on 12.4.1989 for appointment on compassionate grounds to the Chairman of the Bank of Thanjavur Limited even before the amalgamation. Having passed S.S.L....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Gounder (Deceased) and anr. Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Debt R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ379
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. On 13.7.1972, the 3rd respondent and others executed a mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,000. On 19.1.1981, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1138 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore against the third respondent and others for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,593.63 with future interest on the basis of the mortgage deed dated 12.7.1972. The mortgagors submitted to a decree in the suit on 27.3.1982 and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on that day. During the pendency of the mortgage suit O.S.No.1138 of 1981, the third respondent in 1982 filed an application before the first respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act') claiming that she was a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act and praying for the issue of certificate of redemption with regard to the mortgage debt. The first respondent accepted the case of the third respondent and gra...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttiappa Gounder Vs. P.M. Rangasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ362
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The procedure adopted by the court below is not satisfactory. Notice on interim attachment was ordered on 10.7.1991 returnable on 5.8.1991. On 5.8.1991, the court below has made the endorsement as follows:Respondent absent affixed. Properties attached on 12.7.1991. Item I valued at Rs. 75,000. Item II valued at Rs. 1,25,000. Service sufficient. Respondent called absent set ex parte. Petition is allowed with costs. Attachment is made absolute. 2. The suit is only for Rs. 54,360. Learned judge has not even applied his mind as to whether it is necessary at all to attach two items worth about Rs. 2,00,000 in all. When the first item is worth, according to the order of the learned Judge Rs. 75,000, he need not have directed attachment of item 2. At any rate, learned Judge has not considered the provisions of Order 5, Rule 15 and Rule 17, C.P.C. Under Order 5, Rule 15, C.P.C., if the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sough...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Sasidharan Vs. Chenthamara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ459
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal against the order of interim attachment, arises in the following circumstances. The respondent filed O.S.No.6116 of 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 59,820 said to be due on promissory note. Even in the plaint, the respondent admitted that the defendant had deposited his title deeds relating to his property bearing Plot No. 9 though it is wrongly typed as No. 8, Thailammal Kamakshi Nagar in Puliyur Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. In para.6 of the plaint it is stated that though the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit on the equitable mortgage, he is filing the suit only as one on promissory note. Nothing is stated in the plaint as to why the plaintiff is not proceeding against the security. Nor is it stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is giving up the security. Even in the cause of action paragraph, a reference is made to the deposit of title deeds.2. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 14617 of 1991 for attachment of propert...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthuswamy Vs. the Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ430
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order dated 26.2.1992 of Bakthavatsalam, J. in W.P.No.2605 of 1992, filed by the appellant against the Authorities of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the said Corporation from taking any action in the matter of the right of retrieval of carbonaceous material flowing out from B and C drain belonging to them in pursuance of the letter dated 11.2.1992 issued by the Corporation.2. The petitioner-appellant has been conferred with a right of retrieval of the abovesaid material for a period of one year pursuant to his tender. Consequently, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 30,000 as earnest money deposit. No doubt, the petitioner-appellant is the highest bidder, his bid being for Rs. 41 lakhs plus taxes. The Corporation accepted the said bid and called upon him by letter dated 12.12.1991 to remit either the full sum or if he desires to pay in monthly instalments, to remit the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Radhakrishna Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas637(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J. 1. Company Application No. 720 of 1990 was moved on May 3, 1990. It is an application under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rule 117 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to grant leave to continue to prosecute Suit No. 1291 of 1980 pending on the file of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay. 2. Company Application NO. 2311 of 1991 was filed by the official liquidator under section 446(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rules 9 and 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to transfer the suit pending now on the file of the Bombay High Court in Suit No. 1291 of 1980 instituted by Messrs. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. against Radhakrishna Mills (in liquidation) to this court and dispose of the same and for other reliefs. By an order dated July, 3, 1987, in Company Petition No. 17 of 1984, this court ordered winding up of the company in question, viz., Radhakrishna Mills Ltd. Pursuant to the winding up order, the official liquidator attached to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »