Chennai Court July 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.
A.K. Subbaraja and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad104
ORDER1. The petitioners, who are the manufacturers of kerosene non-pressure wick stoves, which according to them, constitute the cheapest heating media in a common man's kitchen, have jointly filed the above writ petition for a writ of declaration declaring the order of the respondent made in GSR 699 (E) dated 12-7-1990 viz., the Non-Pressure Stoves (Quality Control) Order, 1990, (hereinafter referred to as the Order) as unconstitutional, illegal and void.2. The impugned order dated 12-7-1990 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals, department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, is reproduced hereunder: 'G.S.R. 699(E) -- In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following order, namely :-- 1) This order may be called Non-pressure Stoves (Quality Control) Order, 1990. 2) It extends to the whole of India. 3) It shall come into force on 1st Feb. 1991. 2. Definitions : In...
Mo. Kandaswami Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad2
ORDER1. W.P. No. 12798 of 1993 is filed by MO. Kandaswami Singh, President of Ambcdkar Socialist Society. Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu, seeking the relief of declaration that the naming of South Arcot New District as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar as unconstitutional and void. The basis for claiming the relief is the same as in W.P. No. 12833 of 1993.2. W.P. No. 12833 of 1993 is filed by Dr. V. Balasundaram, President of Dr. Ambed-kar People's Movement, Madras-4, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O. Ms. No. 366, Revenue Department, dated 11-5-1993, issued by the respondents and to quash the same in so lar as it relates to the caste appellation 'Padayachiar' and for directing the respondents to drop the caste appellation 'Padayachiar' in naming the new district with headquarters at Villupuram.3. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing since the arguments in the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions and in ...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Akthari Begum and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC518
Arunachalam, J.1. Petitioner Abdul Rahman admittedly bad married first respondent Akthari Begum and had also fathered second respondent minor Rahmnia Parveen out of the said marriage. First respondent preferred an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 21 of 1985 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirapalli, claiming monthly maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from the petitioner alleging that they had been wilfully neglected, it was also her case that the contention of the husband that he had pronounced 'talaq' on 10-8-85, was erroneous. After holding an enquiry in which the petitioner did not choose to get into the witness-box or adduce any evidence on his behalf, Enquiring Magistrate found that the first respondent was entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- only for the period 23-9-1985 to 12-9-1986. Enquiring Magistrate accepted pronouncement of 'talaq' was pleaded by the petitioner. The date of 'talaq' was found as 13-6-1986 by the Enquiring ...
Jayee Manohari @ Rani Vs. J. Mohan Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: I(1995)DMC52
Thangamani, J.1. The Appellant herein is the wife of the respondent. The parties are Indian Christians and they got married at Gobichettipalayam on 9.2.1984. Admittedly, they lived together only for a short duration. The respondent husband instituted I.D.O.P. No. 116 of 1985, in the District Court, Erode against the appellant under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the wife without informing him went away to her parent's house and she did not returning in spite of the issuance of Ex. A. 1. notice on 20.2.1985. The present appellant resisted that application contending that she lived with the respondent herein only for about three months. By reason of his impotency and malformation of genital organ the respondent is legally incompetent to enter into the contract of marriage. The marriage between them is null and void. Because of inferiority complex the husband ill-treated her both physically and mentally. The respondent did fingering i...
Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise (Appeal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC244
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in Appeal Nos. 7 and 8/88 (C), dated 29.1.1988, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's appeal Nos.5 and 6/88(C) on merits.3. I have heard Mr. Sriram Panchu learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.4. It is stated by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that two appeals were filed on 11.1.1988, that in respect of the appeal against the order dated 4.8.1987 there was a delay of 51 days, that in respect of the appeal against the order dated 7.9.1987 there was a delay of 22 days in filing the appeals, that along with the appeals the Board preferred miscellaneous petitions to condone the de...
S.K. Samiyappan Vs. the Idol of Sri Sellandi Amman at Sri Sellandi Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ469
Srinivasan, J.1. The appeal arises out of the suit filed by the respondent herein on a promissory note dated 18.8.1973, marked as Ex.A-1, for a sum of Rs. 50,000 executed by the appellant herein. The suit is filed by the Idol of Sri Sellandi Amman at Sri Sellandi Amman Temple, Noyyal Village, Karur Taluk. Originally the idol was represented by the fit person and later, the Executive Officer, Sri Kalyana Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Karur Taluk, Karur got substituted in the place of the fit person. The suit is based only on the promissory note and as per the plaint, valuable consideration passed under the promissory note. A lawyer's notice was issued on 22.1.1979 and the defendant sent a reply on 31.1.1979 admitting the execution of the promissory note, but pleaded loss in the toddy business and inability to pay the amount to the plaintiff. A rejoinder was sent on 12.2.1979 and the suit was filed on 5.8.1979. There was an endorsement on the promissory note evidencing payment of Rs. 100 on 6...
M. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. K. Janardhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad102; (1994)IMLJ100
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. C.M.P. No. 9360 of 1993 :-- This petition is for condonation of delay of 2,092 days in representing the appeal in AS.SR. No. 55107 of 1987. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S, No. 3262 of 1978 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil, Madras. The appeai was originally presented in this Court on 6-7-1987. The papers were returned on 18-9-1987 by the Registry for rectification of certain defects. The papers bear the seal of 25-6-1993 as if they were represented on that date. There is no sort of endorsement by the counsel at the time of the alleged representation. The papers were returned by the Registry and the concerned Appeal Examiner has made an endorsement of return on that date itself. One of the returns raised a query as to how this Court is the proper forum to entertain the appeal when the value of the suit in Rs. 26,585/-, that is below Rs.30,000/-. The Deputy Registrar had initialled the return and made an endorsement,'T...
V. Gunasekaran and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ525
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioners are employed as Jewel Appraisers in the services of the 3rd respondent/The Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. According to the petitioners, they completed more than seven years of service. The post of Jewel Appraisers in the 3rd respondent-bank, according to the petitioners, is a permanent post and as many as 32 Jewel Appraisers are employed throughout the day by the 3rd respondent-bank and the Jewel Appraisers like the petitioners work for the whole day in the bank and their job is not confined to testing the fineness of the jewels pledged with the 3rd respondent-bank.2. According to Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the work performed by the petitioners and other Jewel Appraisers includes enrolling the jewel loan applicants as members, testing the fineness of the jewels after filling up the jewel loan bond, payment vouchers, payment receipts, discharge receipts, maintaining the jewel loan ledgers and filling...
Dr. Shyamala Xavier Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Mgr Medical Univ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad35; (1993)IIMLJ550
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Gold Medalist in the B.D.S. Course. The petitionerhad completed the 1st Year M.D.S. Course with the third rank. For the second year M.D.S. Course, the Part II examination consists of two parts, one is theory consisting of 3 Papers, and the other is practical. All the theory papers and practaical examinations are to be evaluated by the all the four examiners individually. During the previous years, there was one internal examiner and thre external examiners, but for the years 1991-92 it appears, that the said procedure had been changed as two internal examiners as against one and instead of 3 external examiners there were only two. According to the petitioners, the Syndicate did not pass any resolution to effect the abovesaid change. In this petition, the petitioner who alleges mala fides against the 4th respondent, further states that this year the 4th respondent, who, according to the petitioner, is inimically disposed of towards the petitioner, came as an ...
P. Ramaswamy Vs. P.M. Agencies Represented by Its Managing Partner, P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ328
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. The defendant/respondent in I.A. No. 482 of 1988 in O.S. No. 326 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ootacamund, is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the M/s. P.M. Agencies represented by its Managing partner Mr. P. Mugundaraj. The plaintiff is admittedly a registered partnership firm and the suit was filed by the partnership represented by its Managing Partner P. Mugundaraj. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in any day creating any interest over the suit property by way of lease etc. P. Mugundaraj died on 11.2.1987 and on his death. Smt. Vanaia Sundararajan filed I.A. No. 482 of 1988 in the lower court for amendment of the plaint by deleting the name of P. Mugundaraj and substituting her name in the short and long cause titles in the suit. According to Smt. Vanaja Sundararajan she is entitled to ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »