Chennai Court February 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdul Salam Vs. T.R. Vinobkumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ15
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order in Tr.O.P. No. 53 of 1992 on the file of District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.2. Short facts are: The first respondent had filed the aforesaid O.P. No. 53 of 1992 before the District Judge, Kanyakumari, for transfer of the suit in O.S. No. 28 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai to Sub Court, Padmanabhapu-ram or Sub-Court, Nagercoil. That was opposed by the petitioner herein who was the first respondent before the court below. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge has passed an order, allowing the petition and directing transfer of the case, to Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent before the court below has come forward with this civil revision petition.3. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that transfer petition was filed in the court below on the ground that Sub-Judge, Kuzhithur...
NazimuddhIn Ahmed Represented by His Wife and P.A.A. Naseema Ahmed Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ39
ORDERBellie, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the tenant on the petition filed by the landlord and that order has been confirmed by the appellate authority. Against that the tenant has filed this civil revision petition.2. The landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant failed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem from July, 1990 to November, 1990 and this was inspite of a notice issued by the landlord dated 16.11.1990 calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises, and therefore there was wilful default in payment of rent.3. The tenant denied that there was wilful default He contended that the landlord consented that the tenant could effect repairs to the premises and the amount spent for that could be adjusted towards the rents from July, 1990, and he (tenant) effected repairs to the premises spending a sum of Rs. 1,000. However on receipt of notice from the landlord he sent a demand dra...
Suraj Agencies Represented by Its Proprietor K. Jeyaseelan Vs. Souther ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ115
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. Petition under Section 151, C.P.C., praying for permission to the appellant to use the label as they have been using all along, along with the word 'Suraj' printed in size similar to the size of the word 'Regal'.2. The petitioner's case is briefly as follows: The suit was filed on the basis that defendants have committed passing off with respect of their products. The main grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants have used the word mark 'Regal' which phonetically is similar to 'Regaul' the word mark used by the plaintiffs. Excepting the two words, the rest of the label of the two parties are totally different from each other. It would be impossible to mistake one for the other. The learned trial Court states that most of the buyers are illiterates and they are likely to be deceived into accepting 'Regal' products for the product named 'Regaul'. They will be entirely guided by visual impression made by the label. In the present case, the colour scheme, t...
The Superintending Engineer, Fishing Harbour Projects Vs. Andhra Civil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ28
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No. 6413 of 1991 in O.P. No. 37 of 1989 dated 10.3.1992 to refer two additional issues to arbitration for adjudication by a retired Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. 2. The respondent in Application No. 6413 of 1991, viz., Superintending Engineer, Fishing Harbour, is the appellant. The respondent is Andhra Civil Constructions. It is averred in the petition filed by the respondent herein that they entered into a contract with the appellant for the construction of a rubble-cum-dolosse protection (eastern breakwater) at the Chinnamuttom Fishing Harbour in Kanyakumari and an agreement dated 157.1984 was entered into between the parties. The above work was completed on 30.9.1987. During the course of execution of work, certain disputes arose between the applicant and the respondent and as there was an arbitration clause and wanted to refer the dispute to arbitration. However, the appellan...
Kovilpatti Sri Dhandayuthapani Trust, Through Its Hugdar A. Seethalaks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ522
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order in I.A. No. 1610 of 1992 in O.S. No. 330 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti, in which the learned District Munsif has passed an order, holding that the document dated 23.8.1992 is not admissible in evidence.2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 330 of 1992 for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. He also filed petition in LA. No. 1610 of 1992 under Order 39, Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C., praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession. That was opposed by the revision petitioner herein who was the respondent in the trial court. In that enquiry, the revision petitioner herein had filed the document dated 23.8.1992 given by the respondent herein, duly attested by two witnesses. Objection was raised for receiving it in evidence. On that objection, the learned District Munsif has passed an order, holding that i...
Kamalia Bivi and Others Vs. Fakkir Mohammed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ208; II(1994)DMC558
ORDER1. This revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Cri. R.C. 1 of 1988 dated 11-9-1989 where by modifying the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court by reducing the quantum of maintenance payable to the first petitioner to the extent of Rs. 150/- and at Rs. 50/- each to the revision petitioners 2 to 8 by setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in M.P. No. 99 of 1986, whereby directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- towards maintenance to the first petitioner and at Rs. 150/- each to respondents 2 to 8 per month from the date of petition viz., 11-9-1986 which come to Rs. 1450/- as contemplated under section 125(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- Ten years prior to the filing of the maintenance c...
Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1993
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mad)389
ORDERG. CHOWDHURY, J. M. :Since the issues are common, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. ITA Nos. 1624 & 1625(Mad)/1995 have been filed by the assessee against the order under s. 201(1) by which the assessee was treated in default, as it did not deduct tax at source. ITA Nos. 1626 & 1627(Mad)/1995 are against the orders under s. 201(1A), by which interest was levied.2. The brief facts of the case are like these. The assessee-company is a company registered under the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the company. The company was set up with the objective of providing a number of financial services to its customers/investors including funds management and asset securitisation. The company started three types of schemes where the funds of the investors were invested, namely, (1) Bank Guaranteed Investments, (2) Viswasamrudhi, and (3) Prime Invest. The different investors, under the terms and conditions of offer memoranda, place the funds with the assessee, ...
Renganayaki Vs. Arunagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad174; I(1994)DMC315
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. 128/81 on the file of District Judge, Trichirapalli in which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and thereby decreed H.M.O.P. 7/78 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruehirapalki, for divorce.2. Short facts are : The respondent herein had filed petition under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on 'the ground of desertion in H.M.O.P. 7/78 before the trial Court on the following grounds :He married the petitioner herein on 10-9-64. She is a hot tempered lady. She used to leave for Karur without any intimation to him and used to stay there. On 6-8-66 she went away to Karur and wrote a registered lettercalling upon him to go and reside with her at Karur. Despite his efforts, she did not come and so he filed H.M.O.P. 63/67 for restitution of conjugal rights. She realised her mistake and came over to his house with her parents. So, H.M.O.P. 63/67 was not pressed and dismissed. But again trouble...
Ramakrishnan Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC21; 1993(66)ELT563(Mad)
1. The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent dated 25-4-1985 in and by which a payment of Rs. 1,32,731.40 was demanded. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following :- The petitioner admittedly succeeded before the Collector ( Appeals) in the matter of levy of excise duty and the revenue not accepting the orders of the Collector (Appeals) preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. When the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Collector namely the 2nd respondent herein, has written a letter to the petitioner which reads a follows : ' Since our Department has decided to withdraw the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order-in-Appeal No. 401/82 (M) dated 16-11-1982 of the Collector (Appeals) Madras the demand already issued to you and confirmed in order No. V/2 AA/14/1/81 dated 12-8- 1982, except in the case of fluorspar, by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coonoor Division, has since been reviewed and modified to ...
Mgt. of Tamilnadu Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. Jayapalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ60; [1994(68)FLR861]; (1994)ILLJ838Mad; (1993)IIMLJ363
ORDERThangamani, J.1 .Responden - Jayapalan is a worker in the appellant - Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation, Ariyalur, Trichy District On July 29, 1988 at 3.45 P.M., when he was on his way to Like his tool box in the factory, unexpectedly the stainless steel rod under drilling in the HMT lathe got twisted and hit on him violently with great velocity as a result of which he had sustained injuries in his hip, left forearm and beneath right eye on his cheek. He was immediately given first aid and later on treated at Raja Mirasudar Hospital, Thanjavur and A.K.C. Nursing Home. Cotending that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, he claimed Rs. 19,940 as damages from the Management in W.C.No. 61 of 1990 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The appellant-Cements Corporation though conceeded that the worker was on duty in the factory at the relevant time resisted the claim on the ground that the worker had no necessity to go near the lathe without ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »