Chennai Court July 1993 Judgments
B. Padmapriya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad95
ORDERRaju, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to make admissions to the B.Sc., (Nursing) course for the year 1993-94 in accordance with the Regulation formulated and brought into effect from the academic year 1992-93 by the third respondent. The petitioners are students who have all completed their plus two (H.S.C.) course of study and are aspiring for admission into the B.Sc., (Nursing) professional course.2. The petitioners claim that students who have studied Science Group (viz., Physics, Chemistry and Biology) in the plus two course are eligible for undergoing the B.Sc., (Nursing) course, that the eligibility criteria for admission into the course has been prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical University', that till the academic year 1993-94 Entrance Examination was being conducted by the Government for all other Professional Courses except B.Sc....
Tag this Judgment!Sharavathy Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd. Represented by Its Sales Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ647
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Petitioner is a private limited company having registered office and factory in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner is manufacturing transformer oil as per Indian Standard 335 -1983 for the past 22 years, the petitioner is supplying transformer oil to most of the Electricity Boards in India besides transformer manufacturers. Insofar as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who is the first respondent herein is concerned, the petitioner has been supplying oil since 1985 on orders placed by the first respondent. In the year 1991 the transformer oil supplied to the first respondent by the petitioner has been certified to be the best for electrical characteristics by Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore. The first respondent issued an advertisement in the newspapers on 26.10.1991 calling for tenders for the supply of new transformer oil and the total value of the tender was approximately Rs. 3.5 crores. The petitioner participated in the tender and offered to su...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Agarbathi Raw Materials Manufacturers and Millers Co-operati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ372
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. Writ Appeals 42 and 43 of 1993 are, preferred against the common order dated 8-1-1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos354 and 355 of 1993. Writ Appeal No. 42 of J993 relates to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 354 of 1993 whereas Writ Appeal Np.43 of 1993 relates to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 355 of 1993. When these two writ appeals came up for hearing, it was brought to our notice that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal, the application filed by the petitioner therein has been considered by the petitioner therein has been considered by the State Government and the same has been rejected by the order dated 28.2.1993, which has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 4994 of 1993. Therefore, we directed the said writ petition to be posted along with these writ appeals for hearing, as in that writ petition the State Government has filed the objections. Accordingly, these three matte...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kanniah Chetty and anr. Vs. Sha Magajee Asal Das
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ648
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The landlords are the petitioners in both the revisions. C.R.P. No. 2499 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.C. A No. 1147 of 1983 whichin turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3230 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 2500 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.C. A. No. 1172 of 1983 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3230 of 1982. The landlords filed a petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'. The petition premises is situated at 69, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. Originally, the tenant was paying a sum of Rs. 350 byway of monthly rent. The landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 3120 of 1975 under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 550 per month. On appeal in R.C.A. No. 47 of 1979, the fair rent was determined at Rs. 538 per...
Tag this Judgment!Santhokhan Vallahhdas Madhvani and ors. Vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ413
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition for modification of the order dated 28.6.1993 passed by us in C.M.P. No. 5594 of 1993 directing the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 to the respondents herein on or before 23rd July, 1993. Though the petition purports to be one for modification, in law it is only for review of our order dated 28.6.1993. In fact, the petition as filed by the counsel was originally one for review and it is represented that at the instance of the registry, the word 'review' has been struck off and the word 'modification' has been substituted.2. The ground on which this petition has been filed is that at the time when we heard C.M.P. No. 5594 of 1993, it was not brought to our notice that a sum of Rs. 51,59,416.55 would be due from the respondents herein to the petitioners and that the liability was also found by the Commissioner appointed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal by an order in C.M.P. No. 17182 of 1988 in L.P.A. No. 192 of 198...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Lakshmana Sah and Bros. Represented by P.B. Kasisah and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ5
Mishra, J.1. Seven petitioning creditors have moved the insolvency petition under Sections 9(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) and 9(g) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 against M/s. P.B. Lakshmanan Sah & Bros., a partnership firm and the 8 partners of the firm, and learned single Judge of this Court has accepted their case of the alleged act of insolvency of the respondents under Section 9(g) of the Act and has adjudged the firm and its two partners, viz. P.B. Kasi Sah and P.T. Hiru Sah, who are the appellants before us as insolvents.2. Petitioning creditors, it is not in dispute, had dealings with the firm Messrs. P.B. Lakshmana Sah & Bros. It occurred as alleged by them that the firm and its partners were transferring their rights with intent to defeat or delay the creditors and in the beginning of 1982, they had almost closed their business and there were talks in trade circle that there were little good left in the shop and less business. By the end of 1982, when the respondents 3 an...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Janardhanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ100
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the 7th defendant in the suit O.S. No. 2353 of 1981 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2, sons of the K. Subbarayalu Chetty, who was the first defendant in the suit. He died during the pendency of the suit. Subbarayalu Chetty had two wives, Annapoornammal and Saradambal, who were defendants 11 and 10 respectively in the suit. Through the former, he had three daughters and a son, who were defendants 13, 15, 16 and 4 respectively. Through the latter he had four sons, two of them being the plaintiffs and the other two were defendants 2 and 3. There were two daughters, who were defendants 12 and 14. The third defendant died pending suit and his wife and children were brought on record as defendants 24 to 26. The 5th defendant was a mortgagee of item No. 1 of plaint 'A' Schedule. That is the only item which is the subject matter of this appeal. The 7th defendant/appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Shanmugham Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC225
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up today for final hearing.2. I have heard Mr. Habibullah Badhsha, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a mandamus directing the second respondent, the Collector of Customs, to return the 30 Bars of gold of ten tolas each, detained under Receipt No. 086357 dated 21.4.1993 to the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted by the Court on 16.6.1993. The 2nd respondent also has filed counter.4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is a Singapore citizen of Indian origin. She arrived at the Madras Airport on 21.4.1993 by Air India flight. On her arrival she declared 100 kgs. of silver and 30 bars of gold of 10 tolas each before the Customs Officers under the Liberalised Import Scheme of Gold and Silver, announced by the Government of India. She has paid the app...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajagopal Vs. M.P. Chellamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ78
Somasundaram, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the Order dated 8.4.1993 made in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992 filed by the first respondent herein, directing respondents 2 to 4 herein to permit the first respondent herein to quarry sand in Amaravathi river for a period of 3 1/2 months from 1.5.1993.2. In the Sub Application No. 133 of 1992 in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992, the appellant along with 5 others was sought to be impleaded as respondents 4 to 9 in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992. However, Sub-Application 133 of 1992 was not pressed by the first respondent herein in the course of the proceedings in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992 and the parties proposed to be impleaded as respondents 4 to 9 were given up. The appellant got leave of this Court to file this L.P.A. in C.M.P. No. 8488 of 1993.3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following: The first respondent herein was granted lease of lands in the Amaravathi ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ayyappan Bleaching Factory by Its Proprietor K. Pushpanathan Vs. F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ456
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S. No. 140 of 1985 on the file of District Judge, Periyar District at Erode, confirming the judgment in O.S. No. 732 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode.2. The short facts are: The respondent had filed suit against the revision petitioner for money due on accounts. That was resisted by the revision petitioner on many grounds. He contended that the suit was not maintainable, and that the plaintiff was not a proprietary concern. After trial the learned District Munsif had rejected the contentions put forth by the defendant and had decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant had filed appeal in A.S. No. 140 of 1985. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal and had confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this revision.3. Mrs. S. Subbulakshmi, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »