Chennai Court June 1993 Judgments
N. Anandan Vs. Ayyanna Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad43; (1993)IIMLJ493
1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1217 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. The said suit is one under Section 92, C.P.C. for settling a scheme for the administration of the 1st plaintiff-Trust, the 1st respondent in both the appeals. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein who are also plaintiffs in the suit, claim to be trustees of the abovesaid trust. These two C.M.As. are against the common order dated 21-4-1993 in three I.As. in the said suit including I.A. Nos. 1511 and 1513 of 1990. C.M.A. 495 of 1993 is against the temporary injunction order in the abovesaid I.A. No. 1511 of 1990 in the said suit restraining the appellant from leasing out the trust properties or collecting the income thereof, as Managing Trustee of the said Trust. C.M.A. No. 497 of 1993 is against the order in the abovesaid I.A. No. 1513 of 1990 appointing a Receiver to take possession of the suit trust properties and manage them.2. Respondents-1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Joy and Etc. Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad282
ORDERSrinivasan, J. A. INTRODUCTION (Thirukkural : 923) 'The sight of the man who is intoxicatedis an abomination even unto the mother that bore him; what must it be then to the worthy?' (Translation by Sri V. V. S. Aiyar) So said Tiruvalluvar 2000 years ago. But obviously the words have not had the desired effect on mankind. 2. Article 47 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes. Four decades and more have elapsed since the advent of the Constitution. But no effective steps could be taken by any State for eradicating the evil. When the sagely advice of the Saint has failed to achieve its purpose for thousands of years, there is no wonder that the provision in the Constitution remains static. The problem is not confined to this country. It is present all over the world, and it has attracted the attention of the reformers and Le...
Tag this Judgment!K. Manickam Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ508Mad
ORDERBaktha Vatsalam, J.1. Four writ petitions have been filed by the same delinquent officer, a Manager in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BHEL' in short), one against the imposition of penalty, one petition praying for promotion as Senior Manager, one petition claiming as Deputy General Manager and petition to declare the promotion of one Parameswaran, junior to the petitioner as null and void. In so far as the petition in W.P.No. 7496 of 1989 is concerned, the prayer is to the following effect:'....to call for the records relating to the penalty advice of the second respondent bearing No. BP:P2:2068338 dated November 3, 1988 as confirmed by the order of the third respondent bearing No. BP:P2-2068338 dated February 17, 1989 and quash the same by issue of writ of ceritorarified mandamus and consequently restore the petitioner to the position of Senior Manager (Promotion post) on and from June 25, 1987 and admit him to the benefit thereon...' 2. Mr. N.R. Chan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sethuramalingam Vs. K. Ramalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ169
Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition. The earlier appeal is filed by the first defendant in the suit and the later appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are the sisters of the first defendant. Their father Mahalingam Chettiar died on 7.11.1968. His wife died in 1980. It is the case of the plaintiff that Mahalingam Chettiar had some ancestral properties in the shape of lands described as item 4 in the plaint schedule, but the income therefrom was not sufficient for maintaining the family. According to her, she carried on business with the help of her husband and with the aid of the income from the business acquired items 1 to 3 which are house properties. In the plaint as originally filed, there were only four items. But, subsequently, by an amendment, two more items were introduced, one being cash of Rs. 43,600 and the other being jewels worth Rs. 53,000. The amendment was only with respect to the schedule by introducing t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Anandan Vs. Ayyanna Gounder, Memorial Trust Represented by Its Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ493
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1217 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in both these civil miscellaneous appeals. The said suit is one under Section 92, C. P.C. for settling a scheme for the administration of the 1st plaintiff-trust, the 1st respondent in both the appeals. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein who are also plaintiffs in the suit, claim to be trustees of the abovesaid trust. These two C.M. As. are against the common order dated 21.4.1993 in three I. As. in the said suit including I.A. Nos. 1511 and 1513 of 1990. C.M.A. No. 496 of 1993 is against the temporary injunction order in the above said I.A. No. 1511 of 1990 in the said suit restraining the appellant from leasing out the trust properties or collecting the income thereof, as Managing Trustee of the said Trust. C.M.A. No. 497 of 1993 is against the order in the abovesaid I.A. No. 1513 of 1990 appointing a Receiver to take possession of the suit trust properties and manag...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Light Roofing Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC46; 1993(67)ELT454(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. A writ petition and a suit have been tried together in which a learned Single Judge has delivered a judgment holding that the plaintiff/ respondent is entitled to a decree that the show cause notice dated 13-2-1978, marked as Ex. P-1 is illegal, void and barred by limitation and accordingly he is entitled to a permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant (1st appellant before us) from proceeding with the enquiry or taking any steps or passing any orders in pursuance of the said Ex. P-1. 2. Since we were to presently state why we have decided to interfere with the judgment but at the same time we are not inclined to reject the case made out in the plaint and in the writ petition, we do not propose to detail every fact except as follows :- On 22-9-1975 the 1st defendant directed that the plaintiff should clear tariff duty under Tariff Item No. 17(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The same was challenged before this court by filling a writ petition in W. P. No. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Brakes India Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ24Mad
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioner - Management has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of the 1st respondent passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 2-8-1991, refusing to grant approval of the order of dismissal passed against the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent, who was an employees of the petitioner, was charge-sheeted by a charge memo dated 29-6-1990, charging the 2nd respondent that while he was on duly on 28-6-1990, he had assaulted one Padmanabhan, canteen worker, near the store-entrance, adjacent to the cook's room after altercation, abused the said Padmanabhan in vulgar language and threw a eversilver tumbler on his face and caused a bleeding injury on the right forehead just above the right eye. M/s Ramamurthy and Santhanam, the co-workers who were present at the scene of occurrence to the said injured Padmanabhan for first-aid and thereafter appears that he (Padmanabhan) was taken to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital in an a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kasturi and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, State Bank of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ473
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The, prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of declaration declaring that Pension Rules denying the petitioners of their Pension and Gratuity at the rate specified under Regulation 46(2) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 as arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners who had put in a minimum of 10 years of service, pension or pro-rata pension failing which gratuity at the rate specified in Regulation 46(2) together with 18% interest from the date of resignation....2. The writ petition is preferred by seven officers of the State Bank of India, who joined on various dates in service. At the time of joining they were asked to sign that they are becoming the members of the Pension Scheme. It is stated that under Regulation 45 of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and...
Tag this Judgment!Pullar Chettiar and Others Vs. the Commissioner, Connoor Municipality ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad37
ORDER1. The petitions aforementioned are directed against the proceedings of the respondents, calling upon the petitioners and the other merchants to pay at Rs. 15/- per diem in respect of single stalls and at the rate of Rs. 30/- per diem in respect of double stalls of municipal market in the town of Connoor District, the Nilgiris. According to the petitioners, they were holding on lease either single stall or double stall out of the number of stalls owned by the respondents at Connoor and paying rent of Rs. 1.70 to Rs. 2.00 per day for a single stall and Rs. 3.40 to Rs. 5.00 for a double stall. The stalls, however, were sought to be reconstructed and accordingly the petitioners vacated their respective stalls to enable the respondents to demolish the old buildings. The old buildings were demolished accordingly, according to the petitioners, on the firm understanding that the respondents would give the stalls back to the concerned persons who were occupying them as soon as the reconst...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Azeez Vaidyar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ432
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitions aforementioned are directed against the proceedings of the respondents, calling upon the petitioners and the other merchants to pay at Rs. 15 per diem in respect of single stalls and at the rate of Rs. 30 per diem in respect of double stalls of a municipal market in the town of Coonoor District, the Nilgiris. According to the petitioners, they were holding on lease either single stall or double stall out of the number of stalls owned by the respondents at Coonoor and paying rent of Rs. 1.70 to Rs. 2.00 per day for a single stall and Rs. 3.40 to Rs. 5.00 for a double stall. The stalls, however, were sought to be reconstructed and accordingly the petitioners vacated their respective stalls to enable the respondents to demolish the old buildings. The old buildings were demolished accordingly, according to the petitioners on the firm understanding that the respondents would give the stalls back to the concerned persons who were occupying them as soon as the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »