Chennai Court February 1993 Judgments
Subramania Odear and ors. Vs. Govindammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ129
ORDERThangamani, J.1. While A.A.O. No. 270 of 1983 is against the fair order and decretal order in I.A. No. 966 of 1983, A.A.O. No. 271 of 1983 is against the fair order and decretal order in I.A. No. 3211 of 1982 in O.S. No. 415 of 1982 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.2. On 12.12.1992 when the appeals came on list there was no representation by respondents. So arguments of the appellants' counsel alone were heard. On the next hearing date, the appeal was adjourned at the request of counsel for respondents. Next time both sides wanted adjournment. On 22.1.1993 there was no representation for the appellants. Learned Counsel for the respondents represented that the first respondent Govindammal had ceased to have any interest in the case and so the counsel would contact the client and report. However, during the subsequent hearing on 29.1.1993 there was no representation by both sides. On 3.2.1993 one more adjournment was granted at the instance of learned Counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!D. Swaminathan Vs. Krishnaswamy Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ369
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in a peculiar application filed by the petitioner herein. The prayer in that application is that the court should not permit the 2nd respondent to file any counter in I.A. No. 214 of 1991 on behalf of the 1st respondent.2. The necessary facts are these: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2350 of 1990. He has prayed for injunction restraining the only defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant filed a written statement. The 2nd respondent herein was appearing as counsel for the defendant. He filed the written statement and vakalat for the 1st respondent. In the petition, I.A. No. 2227 of 1990, filed by the petitioner for an injunction, it appears there was an order of interim injunction. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 214 of 1991 for punishing the defendant for contempt for violating the injunction order passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: I(1995)ACC454
Somasundram, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. The sixth and the seventh respondents herein, who are the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident, were respondents 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 and the appellant-Insurance Company was the third respondent therein. Respondents 1 to 5 filed M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondents 6 and 7 and the appellant herein claiming payment of compensation in a sum of one lakh of rupees in respect of the death of one Purushothaman, the husband of the first respondent, son of the second respondent and father of jninor respondents 3 to 5 in a motor accident that took place on 6.3.1980 at about...
Tag this Judgment!Commr., Coimbatore Municipal Corpn. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ535Mad; (1993)IIMLJ179
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The jurisdictional or foundational facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, if stated in a succinct fashion, the tangle posed in all those writ petitions, could be solved with ease and grace and a task towards that end may now be undertaken.2. One K. Thiruvenkataswami was an employee of the erstwhile Coimbatore Municipality (now is a Corporation) working in the Electricity Department. He was working at the relevant tune as a wireman and he attained the age of 55 years on December 26, 1966. It was proposed to retire him from service in terms of the rules framed by the Province of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 74 of the Municipalities Act, since the age of superannuation for the municipal employees under Rule 14 of the said rules was attainment of 55 years of age. Against the proposed retirement, he filed W.P. No. 2746 of 1966 contending that Standing Order 21 of the Model Standing Orders, which prescribed the age of superannuation ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Vs. the Presiding O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ179
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The jurisdictional or foundational facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, if stated in a succinct fashion, the tangle posed in all those writ petitions, could be solved with ease and grace and a task towards that end may now be undertaken,2. One K. Thiruvenkataswami was an employee of the erstwhile Coimbatore Municipality (now is a Corporation) working in the Electricity Department. He was working at the relevant time as a wireman and he attained the age of 55 years on 26th December, 1966. It was proposed to retire him from service in terms of the rules framed by the Province of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 74 of the Municipalities Act, since the age of superannuation for the municipal employees under rule 14 of the said rules was attainment of 55 years of age. Against the proposed retirement, he filed W.P. No. 2746 of 1966 contending that Standing Order 21 of the Model Standing Orders, which prescribed the age of superannuatio...
Tag this Judgment!G. Balachandran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ569
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered in this second appeal, the respondent has entered appearance through Counsel and I have heard both the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the suit for a declaration that he was born on 7.7.1957 and for a consequential mandatory injunction for correcting his date of birth as found in the S.S.L.C. Book, which showed the said date of birth as 7.7.1956. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, both on merits and on the ground that the suit itself was barred by limitation. But, in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 51 of 1989, the lower appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiff that his date of birth was only 7.7.1957 and not 7.7.1956, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Against the said dismissal, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.2. So, she only question to be dealt with...
Tag this Judgment!Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambi Vari Vutchava Vyasya Thadhiyaradhana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad24
ORDER1. Poonamallee Sri Thirukachi Nambi Vari Vutchava Vysya Thadhiyaradhana Charities had been created in the year 1917 and registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The objects of the Charities are :--(1) Thadhiyaradhana (feeding) to the Arya Vysya public at the time of the annual festival in Sri Thirukachi Nambi Temple at Poonamallee and (2) for the purpose of other charitable kaingaryams as approved by the Committee Members.The other kaingaryams, as approved by the Committee Members, it is said, are relatable to the performance of the charities like meeting out educational expenses, marriage expenses, medical relief and other reliefs and help during the time of calamities to the members of the Arya Vysya community, a religious denomination.2. While so, respondent 2, it is said, issued a notice to the petitioner -- Charities to produce certain records for inspection, as if the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act XX...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Balakrishnamaraja and Etc. Etc. Vs. S.K. Alagar Raja and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad357; (1994)IMLJ574
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. In these matters, Original Petitions were filed in the court of the District Munsif, Srivilluputhur under Section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (Act III of 1922) as. amended by Madras Act IV of 1972 and XXIV of 1973 for direction to the respective respondents to sell the properties to the petitioners for the price fixed by the Court. The petitions were numbered and taken on file as O.P. 20 of 1973, 3 of 1974,4 of 1974,22 to 24of 1973, 29 and 30 of 1973 and 17 and 18 of 1973 respectively. The respondents, who are the owners of the lands, questioned the constitutional validity of the said Section and raised other grounds contesting the sustain-ability of the petitions. When the matters were pending in the Court of the District Munsif, petitions were filed in this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution of India for transferring the Original Petitions to this Court as they involved the constitutional validity of a provision in an enactme...
Tag this Judgment!Rajambal Ammal Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ31
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. There is a temple known as Arulmighu Badrakaliamman Temple in Kollampalayam Road, Erode Town. One K.Annamalai Pillai, P. Gurunatha Pillai, Kuppurathinam Ammal and Rajambal Ammal filed an application in O.A. No. 100 of 1962 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Madras-34, under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act XXII of 1959-for short 'the Act') praying for a declaration that they had been holding office of the trusteeship of the said temple hereditarily. On enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, while rejecting the claim of two others, namely, K. Annamalai Pillai' and P. Gurunatha Pillai, however, upheld the claim of Kuppurathinam Ammal and Rajambal Ammal and declared them as the hereditary trustees, by his order dated 30.12.1964.2. Respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Coimbatore-18 in his proceedings Rc. No. 9390/83-Al, dated 23.7.1984 howeve...
Tag this Judgment!S. Janakaradas, Prop. Vijayan Saw Mills and Wood Works Vs. C.M. Raj Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ371
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed Against the order of the Sub Court, Padnfonabhapuram in E.A. No. 112 of 1992 in E.P. No. 29 of 1990 in O.S. No. 41 of 1983, dated 18.12.1992.2. The judgment-debtor, the petitioner herein, filed the said application before the court below contending that the E.P. filed is liable to be rejected on the ground that such an execution proceedings praying for sale cannot be entertained without there being a request for a fresh attachment. The case of the petitioner is that the earlier E.P. No. 22 of 1987 having been dismissed for default of the decree-holder, in the absence of specific order of the executing court that the attachment already effected shall continue or specify the date on which such attachment shall cease the earlier, attachment effected shall be deemed to have ceased. The court below rejected the claim of the judgment-debtor on the ground that such an objection is not available to a case, where there had been an attac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »