Chennai Court September 1992 Judgments
Mary Juliet Rani Vs. S. Selvaraj and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad33
ORDERVenkataswami, J. 1. These papers are placed before us for confirmation as required under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner in this case is the wife. According to the statement made in the petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 16-6-1982 at Christ Church, Pugalur, Karur Taluk. After the marriage, the petitioner and the first respondent lived as husband and wife only for fifteen days at Pugalur. The first respondent has not evinced any interest in the marriage that took place on 16-6-1982, and it was made known that he married the petitioner out of compulsion of his parents. The first respondent, on one occasion, attempted to strangulate the petitioner in the presence of her father. After that, the first respondent deserted the petitioner on 1-7-1982 without any reasonable cause or excuse and he has been living separately. The petitioner came to know later on that the first respondent was living with the second respond...
Tag this Judgment!S. Prasanna Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad150
ORDER1. The prayer in the above writ petition is as follows:'.....to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the respondent in Proceedings No. MD/Sect1/ SDM dated 24-3-1992, quash the same and direct the respondent to pay the renewal and other commissions to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.....'2. The petitioner took up an Agency with the Life Insurance Corportion of India in May, 1983. The payment and termination of the services of LIC Agents are governed by statutory Rules which have been framed under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 and these Rules are known as the Life Insurance Corportion of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. According to the petitioner ever since he was appointed as an Agent of the Life Insurance Corportion, he has done exceedingly well. He had also the unique distinction of being the only Agent to get the IMM -- Campa Cola -- Marketing...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony and Others Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1828
Arunachalam, J.1. 11th June, 1982, was a black day in the annals of Ayyapuram Village, a hamlet of Puliyangudi. Communal disharmony, between muslims and harijans in a group, opposed to caste Hindus, had led to murder, arson, robbery, mischief causing hurt and killing of cattle at Ayyapuram, on the fateful day. 2. The investigating Police charge sheeted 106 adults and a juvenile, as the offenders in this crime. Subsequent death of the juvenile excluded him from this prosecution. Of the 106 accused charge sheeted, Shabmuga Ayya shown as A. 77 in the charge-sheet absconded and the case against him was split up. Though Thangavelu shown as A. 93 in the charge-sheet also absconded, initially, before commencement of trial, he surrendered and was shown as A. 104, Vellachamy Thevar listed as A. 103 in the charge-sheet died before trial. Thus in S.C. 16 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judges, trial was held against 104 accused alone, since one died before trial and the other co...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdoss and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2147
Mishra, J.1. On a report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime (General), Egmore, Madras-8, X Crime No. 1899/92 under sections 120-B, 124A, 153A(1)(a)(b), 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(1) and 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been registered. Petitioners herein were taken in custody in connection with the said case, and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. 2. Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan, who is in charge of regular Court No. X, since the Court of the regular Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was vacant, held the charge of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and ordered for remand of the petitioners on 18-9-1992. This order passed under sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was evidently on the report of the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned who, after arresting the petitioners herein and obtaining them into custody, was duty bound to prod...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajadurai Vs. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC44
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 3.4.1992 and [to] set him at liberty. The impugned order of detention was passed by the first respondent, namely, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.2. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order and which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be stated as follows:--On 9.12.1991 the officers of Enforcement Directorate, Madras, on information, intercepted a person by name Shan...
Tag this Judgment!Chekka Ramaniah and anr. Vs. S. Mariappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ406
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners in all these revisions. The first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. The respondents are the owners of the premises bearing door No. 290, Bharathi Salai, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras-5. The petition for eviction was filed against all these tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In so far as the tenants in C.R.P. Nos. 2729 and 395 of 1991 are concerned, the eviction petitions were also filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. The petitioners in C.R.P. Nos. 2729 of 1989 and 395 of 1991 are the joint tenants under the respondents herein for the entire premises except three shops in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 429 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in...
Tag this Judgment!Periyasamy Vs. Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ753
1. The accused in Special Case No. 11 of 1986 on the file of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli is the appellant herein. He was charged for an offence punishable under S. 161, I.P.C. and also under S. 5(2) r/w. S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The charge against him is that he demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification or motive or reward on 21-8-85 at his residence at Karur from one M. Jagannathan for the purpose of recommending the issue of legal heirship certificate on the death of Palanisamy brother of the said Jagannathan to enable him to get the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in the Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur in the name of his deceased brother Palanisamy and actually a sum of Rs. 100/- at the first instance and then directed the said Jagannathan to pay the balance of Rs. 200/- within a period of two weeks thereafter and the accused reiterated the demand again on 28-8-85 at Thottakurichi and on 1-9-85 at Karur ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Alias Ganeshalingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2326; 1993(41)ECC305
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 12-3-1992 and to set him at liberty. The impugned order of detention was passed by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988), with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in possession of narcotic drugs (hereon). 2. The brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned order and which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :- On 7-1-91 at 08.00 hours the detenu, who is a Srilankan National residing at 55, Colombodurai, Jaffna, Srilanka, and now residing at 86, Savadi Street, Pallavaram, Madras-43, was found in possession of a white...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. K. Siraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC262; 1993(65)ELT25(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has found a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the petitioner-respondent invalid. The Union of India, the Collector of Customs and Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who were party-respondents in the writ petition have appealed against the said order. The impugned summons was issued to the petitioner-respondent by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, stating that he was making inquiries in connection with investigation into alleged evasion of custom duty on the import of Lupofresh Browary HDP Extract/Pollots in the name of M/s. Integrated Exports, M/s. Trio Imports and Exports (P) Ltd. and Arasan Industries. According to the summons, the goods were cleared through Madras Air Cargo and through Trivandrum Airport, but the Assistant Director considered the attendance of the petitioner-respondent necessary to give evidence and produce documents relating to import of the co...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bankarappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ91
A. Thangamani, J.1. On 22.2.1984 at about 11.00 a.m. Subburaj, the eldest son of the claimants, was proceeding on his bicycle along Sathur-Kovilpatti main road. When he was nearing Ezhayiram Farm diverse road the lorry bearing registration No. MEP 2338 came from the opposite direction and knocked down the boy. As a result of the injury sustained in the accident Subburaj died instantaneously. The parents of the deceased Subburaj filed M.C.O.P. No. 86 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Srivilliputhur claiming a compensation of Rs. 85,000/- from the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the accident took place only because the boy suddenly took a right turn and that in any event it was liable to pay Rs. 15,000/-, the no fault liability alone. After enquiry the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »