Chennai Court March 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.
K. Mariappan Vs. Tmt. Ranganayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC266
Thangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P. No. 8 of 1989 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. The present respondent Ranganayaki instituted a suit in forma pauperis against the revision petitioner, her husband seeking a decree directing him to pay her Rs. 22,500/- by way of arrears of maintenance. Rs. 500/-per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,500/- per annum for clothing and medical expenses from the date of plaint. The revision petitioner disputed the plaintiff's status as an indigent person contending that his mother-in-law has settled 1 acre and 20 cents of wet land on his wife in the year 1975 and this land is in the enjoyment of the present respondent, and she gets more than Rs. 20,000/- per annum as income from that land. Besides, she is in possession of 25 sovereigns of Jewels and cash Rs. 60,000/-. She is in a position to pay Court-fee which comes to Rs. 2,251/-. The Government Pleader has also filed a counter stating that the plaintiff ...
Raman and Co. Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC311
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 5.2.1993. A few facts may be noticed before the writ petition is disposed of.3. The petitioner is a Custom House Agent and he has been functioning for the last ten years. His agency comes to end by 31.1.1993. He filed an application for renewal on 4.12.1992. Since no orders were passed, W.P. No. 1823 of 1993 was filed and a direction was given by Bakthavatsalam, J. to pass orders on the renewal application on or before 5.2.1993. It is under such circumstances, the impugned order was passed on 5.2.1993. The said order is attacked on the following grounds:(1) The order does not give any reason for the refusal to renew.(2) No opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order.(3) In the counter-affidavit certain norms prescribed by the Collector have been referred to. The contention of the r...
J. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ629
ORDERSrinvasan, J.1. This matter is covered by my order dated 26.2.1993 in W.P. Nos. 15923 of 1991 etc. (batch) (K.V. Sekar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.). In those cases, I have held that the basic permit was only operative within a radius of 2 Kms. from the place of business of the permit holder and such basic permit would not enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 894, dated 29.5.1991 by virtue of the special permit obtained by him under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short 'the Act'. In the present case, it is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the basic permit refers to Section 74 of the Act and it is the one issued under that section, with the result the provisions of Section 88(8) of the Act are satisfied. Learned Counsel refers to the caption at the top of the permit which reads as follows:Basic contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.There is a fallacy in this contention. No doubt Se...
East West Exporters and anr. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC278
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. These two writ petitions have been taken out by two firms engaged in the business of export of ready-made garments and import of cognate goods. The facts in both cases are identical, and the points involved are also the same. I therefore, proceed to pass a common order in the two writ petitions.2. The petitioners had purchased a Value Based Advance Licence from one M/s. Rajendta Enterprises. The purchase was only for part of the value of the licence to an extent of Rs. 11,75,000/-in each case. The petitioners had paid a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- as a premium to the said M/s. Rajendra Enterprises for the purchase of the licence. The said licence enabled the petitioners to import and dear goods specified in the licence without payment of duty. The respondents are also bound to return the licence to the owners for transacting the balance of the licence.3. The petitioners had imported staple pins from Japan and the goods arrived by ship around December 1992. Admittedly, th...
Nanjammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Palaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ7
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 25.9.1983 evidenced by Ex.A-1. Under the agreement the sale deed was to be executed before 12.2.1984. The total consideration was Rs. 1,01,000 and the plaintiff-respondent paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 by way of advance. She issued a notice on 23.1.1984 under Ex.A-2 and she got information that the defendant was trying to sell away the property. She filed the suit on 3.2.1984 for specific performance. The defendant sent a reply on 6.2.1984 claiming that there was a loan transaction and by way of security for repayment of the loan the plaintiff insisted upon an agreement of sale being executed by the defendant and therefore, the agreement was not enforceable, it was also the plea raised in the written statement. According to the defendant the loan amount was Rs. 15,000 and it was to be repaid in five months with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The trial Court accepted the case of th...
K. Jayachandran Vs. the Special Officer, Corporation of Madras and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ279
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The petitioner K. Jayachandran had been appointed as Surveyor while the 5th respondent M. Rukmangedan had been appointed as Assistant Supervisor in the Electricity Department of the Corporation of Madras on 25.11.1965 by the proceedings of the second respondent Commissioner made in ELDC No. A3/5076/65. In the said proceedings, eight appointments had been made and the 5th respondent and the petitioner were respectively shown in serial Nos. 2 and 3. All the appointees in the said proceedings were directed to report for duty to the Electrical Engineer, Corporation of Madras, Ripon Buildings, Madras, within three days of the receipt of the memorandum with their certificates, in original, traceable to their qualifications, date of birth etc. for verification and medical examination. If they failed to report for duty within the time specified, the appointment orders issued will be treated as automatically cancelled.2. The petitioner joined duty on 26.11.1965 while the ...
V. Muthukumaran and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad272; (1993)IMLJ631
ORDER1. One N. P. Venkatachala Mudaliar instituted a suit on the file of the Original Side of this Court against the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- with interest at 6%. When he presented the plaint, he also sought permission to institute the said proceedings in forma pauperis and filed an application No. 187 of 1960 seeking leave to institute the proceedings in forma pauperis under the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. read with Order XIV, Rule 10 of O.S. Rules. Learned Master of this Court appeared to have passed an order dated 27-7-1960 declaring the said Venkatachala Mudaliar as indigent person and leave was granted to him to sue as a pauper.2. The suit was numbered as C.S. No. 114 of 1960 (pauper). During the pendency of the suit he appeared to have died on 28-1-1961 leaving behind him the petitioners, namely, V. Muthukumaran and V. Sathyanarayanan and others as his heirs. An Application No. 637 of 1961 had been filed for br...
Kandasami Mudaliar Vs. Muthukrishna Moorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ672
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S. No. 205 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, which dismissed his suit O.S. No. 127 of 1979 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,055 due under Ex. A-l promissory note executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.2. The only question that is argued before me in this second appeal relates to the material alteration of Ex.A-1 promissory note. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. According to the 1st defendant, the suit promissory note bears, only the date 12.2.1975, but it has been altered by the plaintiff to 12.2.1976. The lower appellate court has found that there is such an alteration and it has also held that it is a material alteration within the meaning of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the lower appellate court has dismissed the suit since as per Section ...
Smt. S.B. HussaIn and anr. Vs. the Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ142
Pratap Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of remand made in A.S. No. 37 of 1985 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupattur. 2. Short facts are: The appellants had filed the suit for a declaration that the demand for payment of compensation, penal charges, as per the first defendant's demand notice dated 28.7.1980 is illegal and unlawful and arbitrary and without any basis and consequential injunction. The defendants resisted the claim taking various contentions, inter alia contending that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs under Section 25(d) of the Court fees Act for the declaratory relief is not correct. Alter trial, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur had found that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct and has also found the case of the plaintiff well founded and has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant took up the matter in appeal in A.S. No. 37 of 1985 before the Sub-Judge, Tirupattur. The learned Sub-Judge took up the ques...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›