Chennai Court April 1992 Judgments
M. Rajagopal and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ404
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of Additional buildings for Coimbatore Regulated Marketing Committee. 2. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 1665, Agricultural Department, dated 14.10.1988 and issued the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and it was published in the Gazette on 2.11.1988. The paper publication is the local dailies was on 27.10.1988 which was prior to Gazette publication. As enquiry under Scc.5-A of the Act was held and the petitioners objected to the acquisition proceedings stating that they have purchased the lands for construction of houses and the Land Acquisition Officer sent a report to the Government recommending exclusion of the lands belonging to the petitioners and certain others to an extent of 1.10 acres in Survey. Field No. 55.3. However, the Government afte...
Tag this Judgment!Seeni thevar and ors. Vs. M.S. Velayutha Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ530
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed in both the courts below plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 7, representing 'the Hindu general public in the City of Rajapalayam' have filed this second appeal. Their suit O.S. No. 93 of 1978 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur is for declaration that the suit institution is a 'public religious institution belonging to the Hindu public in general as against the exclusive claim by the defendants on behalf of Rajus of Singaraja Kottai, Rajapalayam with a right of entry for all the Hindu citizens into it for worship in pujas according to the usage by Panda-rams of the 'temple' (a temple called Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, Pudupalayam) and for consequential injunction.2. The pleas of the plaintiffs are briefly as follows: The origin of the said institution is unknown. However, the deity was granted by Karnatic Rajas in T.D. No. 182 of Sambandapuram village (now called as Pudupalayam). The grant was devadayam grant. In the year 1865, the T.D. was c...
Tag this Judgment!Master Recording Company Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT60(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 23rd day of April 1992 and on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 27-1-1984 made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in (1) File C. No. V/68/18/70/82-R.C. dated 17-3-1983 on the file of the first respondent. (2) A. No. 227/83(M), dated 1-7-1983 on the file of the 2nd respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. S. Nandakumar for M/s. K. P. Jagadeesan and N. S. Kasiviswanathan, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, the court made the following order : The above writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent on his File C. No. V/68/18/70/82-R....
Tag this Judgment!K. Varadhan Vs. Pattammal (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ259
Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed by the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction.2. The plaintiff/1st respondent, it is not in dispute, owned the schedule B property-house, lived in a portion of the same, while the other portion was occupied by tenants. She mortgaged the property to one Murugesa Asari, borrowing a sum of Rs. 1,200 from him. In the middle of December, 1972, however, when she needed further money, the defendant/ Appellant who was a close relative volunteered to help her. stating that he would advance further sum required by her, that he would discharge the subsisting mortgage and take in his name a fresh mortgage for the amount advanced by him and the amount paid for discharging the earlier mortgage. According to the plaintiff, thus representing, the defendant obtained a document from her on 1.1.1973 and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff/1st respondent, according to her case, was all along under the impression that the document dated 1.1.1973 was only ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3439
K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention dated 30-10-1991 and for setting him at liberty. 2. The detenu came to the adverse notice as a bootlegger in view of the cases referred to in the preamble and he was detained on the basis of the ground case. 3. The impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellor, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki and anr. Vs. Kiliambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ35
Srinvasan, J. 1. Second Appeal No. 1324 of 1989: This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2, who claim to be the wife and son of one Narasinghan, who died on 28.6.1984, He met with an accident on 23.6.1984 and died on 28.6.1984. He was employed as an Assistant (Agricultural Demonstration), in the Office of the Assistant Director (Agriculture), Seed Centre, Cuddalore. The suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the eight defendant Poongothai are the only legal heirs of the deceased Narasinghan and they are entitled to receive the amounts due to the deceased by way of service benefits, provident fund and death-cum-retirement gratuity, pension, etc. The dispute, in short, is between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was married to Narasinghan somewhere in June, 1946 and the second plaintiff was born to them. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindarajan and ors. Vs. the Indian Overseas Bank, Pondicherry by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ189
ORDERBellie, J.1. The two defendants against whom the suit has been decreed is the appellants. The plaintiffs-Indian Overseas Bank, Pondicherry, got a money decree against the second defendant-Ramaswamy Mudaliar on 18.9.1975 by a Judgment of the High Court, for a sum of Rs. 33,893. In execution of that decree in E.P. No. 45 of 1976 the plaintiff attached the suit property- a house belonging to the second defendant on 24.10.1976. In the meanwhile, after filing of the suit on 19.11.1964, the second defendant on 21.11.1964 executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the first defendant-his brother in law. First defendant filed a claim petition on the basis of the said sale deed, the certified copy of which is Ex.B-1 and claim petition was allowed on 16.11.1977. The plaintiff filed the present suit for setting aside that claim order, pleading that the alleged sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is a benami transaction and only t...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Gopal and ors. Vs. S. Vasanthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ226
Mishra, J.1. The caveators/defendants in a testamentary proceeding have appealed questioning the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of late K. Kulasekaran alias A.K. Sekhar who died on 6th August, 1976. Under the said Will Sekhar bequeathed certain properties to his three daughters appointing two sons-in-law as executors of the Will. The Will had been deposited in the Bank of Baroda by the testator himself.2. In response to the citation issued, the appellants who are the sons of the testator A.K. Sekhar contested the case of the bequeath to the daughters only alleging that there was no occasion for the testator to execute the Will in their favour since he had already gifted jewels and cash to them. They brought on record the fact that in the year 1972, the testator had executed settlement deeds and gifted one house each to his four sons. He never thus, according to them intended to give any property to his daughters and alleged that the Will must have been obtained by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Baghyavathi Vs. Smt. Llakshmikanthammal (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad346
1. Suit for partition and separate possession.2. The plaint averments are as follows :--The 1st defendant Smt. Lakshmikan-thammal and 2nd defendant Smt. Raja-lakshmi Ammal are senior and junior widows of one late Srinivasalu Naidu who died intestate on 4-5-1980. The 3rd defendant Smt. Sarojini is the daughter of the 1st defendant Smt. Lakshmikanthammal, while 4th defendant Gajalakshmi is the eledest daughter of 2nd defendant Smt. Rajalakshmi Animal. Plaintiff Baghyavathi is her youngest daughter. Srinivasalu Naidu married the second defendant Smt. Rajalakshmi Ammal as his second wife in the year 1948. While items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule are the self acquired properties of Srinivasalu Naidu, the shipping and clearing agent business carried, on by him as sole proprietor is described as Item 4 in the plaint schedule. The parties herein alone are legal heirs of deceased Srinivasalu Naidu. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the said properties. Hence the suit for partition an...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Rajagopalan Vs. Southern Structurals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ87
ORDERMishra, J.1. W.P. No. 101116 of 1983 is directed against the order of T.S.E. case No. 44 of 1980 by the second respondent therein viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, Madras, under which order he has held that no appeal is maintainable under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act against the order of termination of service passed by the management of Southern Structurals Ltd. the first respondent therein W.P. No. 17376 of 1991 is directed against the order of termination passed by the said respondent as well as to quash the service rules so far as clause 6(4) thereof is concerned. 2. Relevant facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are as follows : Petitioner was employed as a Stores Officer in the service of the respondent-Southern Structurals Ltd., when according to him his service was unlawfully terminated by order dated 1.9.1980. He had joined the service of the respondent in July, 1962 as cashier-cum-accounts Ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »