Chennai Court October 1993 Judgments
Kodali Sathyanarayana Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC162; 1994(70)ELT194(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 23-1-1985 and made herein and the counter affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in F. No. 459/309/84-Cus. V dated 22-9-1984 on the file of the 1st respondent comprised in the return of the respective respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E. S. Govindan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions, the Court made the following order :- The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He got incapacitated at the age of 23. At the time of filing the writ petition, he was aged 33. He is working in M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad as Chief Accountant. In order to attend to the day-to-day requirements of Bankin...
Tag this Judgment!Star Talkies by Its Proprietor, O.P. Muthiah Vs. State of Tamil Nadu R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ245
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a permanent cinema theatre having been licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 situated at Nagapattinam, Thanjavur District. The petitioner pays entertainment tax under Section 5(B) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, herein after referred to as the Act, taking advantage of the compounding system. The Government by exercising its power under Section 8(2) of the Act passed G.O.Ms. No. 483, dated 3.5.1983 granting exemption from tax with regard to two films viz., 'Circus Ulagam' and 'Baktha Duruva Markandeya'. Clauses 2 and 3, of the G.O. are relevant and they read as follows:(2) Special tickets indicating the reduced price of admission after giving the benefit of tax exemption to the viewer, should be printed and used after getting them sealed by the entertainment tax officer concerned;(3) The price of admission should be reduced to be notional rate of admission after deducting the notional tax element from the gross price ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Rajagopalan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ160
Srinivasan, J.1. The writ petitioner passed intermediate with Agriculture as subject at Annamalai University. He was working for two years in a temporary post as Agricultural Instructor at Thirupporaithurai Vivekananda High School. He was appointed temporarily by order dated 10.2.1960 at Thavasumuthu Nadar High School, Porayar. Subsequently, he was appointed permanently by an order dated 30.5.1960 in the scale of pay of Rs. 75-5- 125-10-175. The school is an approved and aided school. By order dated 22.10.1968 in G.O.Ms. No. 1645, Education Department, the State of Tamil Nadu issued ad hoc rules for the holders of permanent post as well as temporary posts under the Madras Educational Subordinate Service. The rules were made with retrospective effect from 7.4.1948. One of the posts covered under the rules was the post of Instructor for Agriculture. The qualifications for the post of Instructor for Agriculture are B.A. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Agriculture) as well as pass in the Intermedi...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Shivaraj Vs. Inspector of Police, Thuraipakkam Police Station
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1770
ORDER1. This petition is registered on a telegram received by the Chief Justice issued by M. G. Shivaraj, Advocate. It is issued on 11-10-1993 at 18-29 hrs. The contains of the telegram are that Vaiyapuri, son of Govindaswamy, aged 18 years of Canalpuram Palavakkam, Madras was forcibly taken by the Inspector of Police. Thuraipakkam and his men on 7-10-1993 and was illegally detained for the past five days. It is stated that the life of the petitioner is in stake and relatives are not allowed to feed him. The Chief Justice is requested to kindly intervene and save this life of the petitioner. When this H.C.P. was posted before on 13-10-1993, nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. The name of the counsel Mr. Shivaraj appeared in the cause list. But, he remained absent. We were informed by the Public Prosecutor that a regular writ petition has been filed and it is numbered as H.C.P. No. 1900/93 with respect to the very same matter and it comes up before the other Bench consisting...
Tag this Judgment!Vellai Ammal and ors. Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ98
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 431 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsif of Nilakottai. They filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the suit property which is Survey No. 381/11-0.94 acres - Old Patta No. 798, New Patta No. 1918 in Jambuthuraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk. The ad interim injunction obtained by them in I.A. No. 694 of 1991 in that suit was vacated on 16.3.1992. Alleging that subsequently the defendants have trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed them, they have come forward with I.A. No. 387 of 1992 under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to amend the plaint so as to substitute the relief of injunction by one for recovery of possession. Besides, stating that the trespass alleged is not true and that they arc in enjoyment of the property since the date of their purchase on 9.10.1979 the defendants did not give any valid objection for amending th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Neela Alias Neela George Vs. M.R. Chandra Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ193
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. C.R.P. No. 3948 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.C. A.No. 128 of 1986 which in turn arises out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 397 of 1983. C.R.P. No. 3949 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. l29 of 1986 which in turn arises out of the order passed in R.CO.P. No. 2738 of 1983. The petitioner and the respondents in both the revision petitions are the same and they are respectively being the tenant and the landlady.2. The petition(s) premises is situated at 178, Peters Road, Royapettah, Madras-14. The monthly rent agreed was Rs. 300 exclusive of electricity charges. According to the landlady, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from April, 1981 to November, 1981, viz., for a period of 8 months, amounting to Rs. 2,400. Hence the landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.115 of 1982 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishnan Vs. Sakthi Shanmugavel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ197
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 12 of 1991 on the file of Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Dindigul. The landlord filed that application under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The landlord alleged that recently he has retired from Government service. He has no other house except the petition house in Dindigul. He is now put up in a rented building in Namakkal. He requires the building for his residence at Dindigul. Even while he was in service he had written letters to the tenant seeking the house for his accommodation after retirement. The landlord also claimed that the building was constructed 100 years ago and since it is in dilapidated condition, he wants the same for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court allowed his application only on the first ground. The appeal preferred by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 22 of 1992 was also dismissed by the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Rajarani Silk Palace and ors. Vs. C.K.B. Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ212
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners herein.2. The petition for eviction was filed under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a)and 10(2)(iii)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The petition premises is situated at No. 31, Nainappan Street, Mannadi, Madras-1. The petitioners herein are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 payable according to English calendar month. According to the landlord, the tenants sublet the petition premises to the respondents 6 to 8 without the written consent of the landlord. Further, according to the landlord, the tenants without the permission of theiandlord put up a construction in the open space on the first floor. Therefore, according to the landlord, the value and utility of the building are materially impaired. Hence, the petition was filed under Sections 10(2)(a)(ii) and 10(2)(iii)of the Act.4. The tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Abraham Vs. Shantha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ301
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 95 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsif of Kodaikanal. He filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit property which is a House and vacant site on the northern side of old Survey No. 99/R2-C3 in Lake Road, Kodaikanal Town. He claimed in the plaint that he has purchased this property under a sale deed dated 27.4.1992 from the power agent of the owner Yasumithiran. According to him, the suit was laid since the defendant sought to disturb his possession. Plaintiff also obtained an exparte injunction in I.A. No. 153 of 1992. Thereafter, the defendant came forward with I.A. No. 167 of 1992 for the purpose of appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit property, measure the same with the help of qualified Taluk Surveyor and to find out whether the building is situated in Survey No. 99/B-2-C3 alone or in both Survey Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Nalli Sambasivan and anr. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ415
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These two appeals are under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The point involved in both the appeals is the same, in T.M.A. No. 7 of 1993 the appellant is one Nalli Sambasivam and in T.M.A. No. 8 of 1993 the appellant is one Nalli Duraisamy Saroja. There was Application No. 472754 for registration of a particular trade mark and it was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal on 16.7.1992. Each of the appellants filed notice of opposition on 23.11.1992. As per Section 21 of the Act, three months' time is granted 'from the date of the advertisement...of an application for registration for filing notice of opposition. No doubt, as per the very same Section, apart from the said three months, a further period not exceeding one month may also be granted by the Registrar under the Act on the application made to him in the prescribed manner. Since notice of opposition in the present case was filed only on 23....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »