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.
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Dept. Vs. M.V.P.B. Nammalwar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ21
Bellie, J.1. The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the subject matter of the suit which is popularly known as Dhakshinamoorthy Math is really a math or a Samadhi.2. The plaintiff M.V.P.B. Nammalwar filed the suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner in A.P. No. 191 of 1976 which arose out of a petition filed by him before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 21 of 1975 for declaration that the Dhakshinamoorthy Math, is not a math within the meaning of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition and on appeal the Commissioner confirmed it. To set aside that order of the Commissioner, and to declare that the Dhakshinamoorthy Math is not a math the suit has been filed.3. According to the plaintiff, Dhakshinamoorthy math, though it is called as math or Ashram, is only a Samadhi. The founder o...
Management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corpn. Ltd. Vs. N. Jayapalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC670
A. Thangamani, J.1. Respondent Jayapalan is a worker in the appellant Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Ariyalur, Trichy District. On 29.7.1988, at 3.45 p.m., when he was on his way to take 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. Contending that the accident arose out of and in the course of 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 Ltd., though conceded 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 with...
C. Abdul Jabbar Sahib (Died) and ors. Vs. C. Abdul Hafiz Sahib and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ283
Thangamani, J.1. One Abdul Jabbar Sahib is the first appellant in both the appeals. Since he died pending appeals his legal representatives appellants 2 to 8 were brought on record. Respondents 1 to 3 Abdul Hafiz Sahib, Abdul Wahid Sahib and Abdul Majid Sahib are the brothers of the first appellant. Plaint 'A' Schedule properties were allotted to the share of their sister Kurshidunnissa Begum in an earlier partition suit. Respondents 2 and 3 Abdul Wahid Sahib and Abdul Majid Sahib left the family in or about 1958 and they had not been heard of for all these years. Kurshidunnissa Begum died intestate on 18.2.1971. The first appellant herein instituted O.S. No. 260 of 1973 against the present first respondent Abdul Hafiz Sahib and the other two brothers for partition and separate possession of his 1/4 share in the properties left by their sister. In that plaint he claimed that the three brothers are the only heirs of Kurshidunnissa Begum, that respondents 2 and 3 had left the family in o...
Rolab Polymers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Subhadra Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas616(Mad)
Ar. Lakshmanan J.1. The respondent in the main company petition is the applicant herein. The present application has been filed under Order 14, rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with rules 9 and 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to stay the company petition till the dispute is resolved through arbitration under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the main company petition, filed the company petition under section 433(e), 434(1)(a) and (f) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order of winding up of the petitioner-company herein and for other reliefs. Their case is that on August 19, 1988, an agreement was entered into between the parties at Calcutta in and by which the petitioner-company herein appointed the respondent as its consignee, storing and forwarding agent in the eastern region on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement dated August 19, 1988. A copy of the said agreement has been fi...
State by the Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. Muthu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)649; 1993CriLJ2420
1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruchengode, made in C.C. Nos. 143 and 144 of 1986 dated 30-7-1987, whereby acquitting all the accused in both the cases for the alleged offence committed by them under Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930. 2. To appreciate the points involved in both the appeals, the case of the prosecution in brief is stated as follows :- On the instructions given by the Superintendent of Police, Salem, in connection with a petition sent by Ananda Babu, pertaining to a gaming house being conducted, Sub-Inspector, Pallipalayam Police-Station, in compliance with the instructions given by the superior officer with the help of his convoy raided the house bearing Door No. 50, situated in Pallipalayam Bridge Road at about 2.00 a.m. on 15-7-1986, where he found the accused 1 and 2 along with 18 others engaged in playing cards numbering 52 with a total cash of Rs. 12,000/- and ...
Soopi Haji and ors. Vs. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ644
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has disposed of a suit in purported exercise of power under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree saying:The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for return of the advance amount of Rs. 1,18,650 paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, the suit was filed in 1980 and the defendants filed their written statements only in March, 1982. Issues were framed and the suit came up in the list for trial. The defendants were not ready and three weeks adjournment was granted as a matter of negligence. Again on the adjourned date, the defendants were absent and since the defendants filed writ ten statements, evidence was let in on the plaintiffs side and the defendants' counsel cross-examined the witness. No further evidence was let in on the side of the defendants, though time was granted. The defendants are not set ex-parte and the suit was disposed of on merits. Hence...
S. Pakkiaraj Vs. S.N. Kulasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ104
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order directing delivery of possession of the suit property without giving notice to the petitioner/judgment-debtor.2. The short facts are: Respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1311 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee, for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. After an elaborate trial, the learned District Munsif has decreed the suit on 29.12.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was dismissed on 21.9.1989. Thereafter, the respondent has filed E.P. No. 181 of 1991 in the trial court and delivery was Ordered on 5.8.1991 without notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, would submit that under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22, C.P.C., notice has to be given to the petitioner and that the order of delivery without notice i...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: II(1995)ACC38; 1994ACJ664; AIR1994Mad208; (1993)IMLJ514
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff-Steel Authority of India Limited, which filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,324.90 against the three defendants as damages for short delivery of goods, is the appellant.2. The plaintiff booked 51.660 Metric Tonnes of G. C. Sheets in 8 bundles in the first defendant Railways at Rourkela to be delivered to the plaintiff at Madras Harbour. The consignment was booked under Railway Risk. The materials arrived at Madras Harbour on 10-8-1975. The plaintiff found the packing conditions disturbed. Therefore the plaintiff requested the third defendant Port Trust to re-weigh the materials. Accordingly the materials were re-weighed on 11-8-1975. It weighed only 48-300 M.T. Thus there was a shortage of 3-360 M.T. It is not In dispute that the value of this shortage is Rs. 16,324.90. The materials were then delivered to the plaintiff on 12-8-1975. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 16,324.90 for short delivery alleging that i...
Dharmapuram Adheenam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Its Secretary, Rev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ240
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. In view of the fact that these writ petitions involve-common questions, they are taken up together for disposal. Dharmapuram Adheenam by its Adheenakarthar and Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam by its Hereditary Trustee/ Adheenakarthar are respectively the petitioners in these writ petitions. The registered holdings of these two Devasthanams, it is said, had been leased out to tenants. In view of the enactment of various socio-ameliorating legislations, protecting the cultivating tenants in Tamilnadu, the petitioners were unable to realise the income due from the tenants, but nonetheless the burden of paying land revenue never ceased and they were required to pity the same at full rate, which, they say, is not justifiable in such circumstances. They would further contend that for the levy and collection of land revenue, there is no statutory provisions and in the absence of the same, the levy and collection of land revenue is not permissible on the face of Article ...
E. Abdul Jaleel Vs. V. Pakkirisamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1993
Reported in: II(1995)ACC584
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant is the first respondent in W.C. No. 73 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli. The present first respondent v. Pakkirisamy was employed in a' Saw Mill at Mayiladuthurai. On 18.3.1988 at about 12.30 p.m. there was an accident in the mill in which Pakkirisamy's left hand was cut and severed above the wrist by the Saw. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai and then to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Inspite of the treatment given, the wrist could not be attached. Thereupon, he filed W.C. No. 473 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming Rs. 22,400/- as damages. He impleaded the appellant herein Abdul Jaleel as the first respondent and Parameshwaran the present second respondent as second respondent in that application on the ground that the appellant was the original owner of the Saw Mill, that he joi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »