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.
N. Ramaswamy Naidu Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC590
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. I have heard Mr. V. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to call for the records of the 2nd respondent herein relating to his order dated 27.5.1991 and made in O.M.U. No. 24159/91/K4 and by the issue of a certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said order of the Second respondent herein and direct the respondents to grant Family Pension to the petitioner's second wife Jeeva Ammal in the event of the petitioner's death. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 3.9.1991 and the respondents are now represented by Mr. Rajasekaran, Government Advocate. It is stated in the affidavit the petitioner was entitled to the Liberalised Pension, 1960 as applicable to Government servants as per G.O. Ms. No. 512, M.A. & W.S. De...
Babian and anr. Vs. Lt. Col. Offg. Col.Q Branch H.C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ265
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed by salesmen, sales-Assistant-cum-packer, and Cycle Mechanic who were working in the canteen in Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area in Madras, against the orders of termination dt. 16.12.1991 and 15.12.1992.2. Since the facts of these cases are similar, except the service put in by each of the writ petitioners, suffice it to state the facts in W.P. No. 2472 of 1992 which are as follows:The petitioner has been working as Senior Salesman in the Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area C.S.D. Canteen at Madras and the said Canteen is being run by the Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub Area, which is under the control of the Commander, the second respondent herein. The petitioner herein has been working in the Canteen for the past 15 years. The stores, goods, articles etc. in the Canteen are meant to be sold only to the army personnel, ex-servicemen and not to general public. It is alleged in the affidavit that there are about twenty persons workin...
S.G. Ponnambalam and anr. Vs. T.A. Palanivelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ340
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendants are the revision petitioners in this civil revision petition, which arises out of I.A. No. 734 of 1992 filed by the respondent-plaintiff in his suit O.S. No. 479 of 1992. In the suit and I. A., he has claimed that he is a lessee of the suit property and that the defendants-landlords are interfering with his possession. So, in the suit he sought for permanent injunction and in I.A. No. 734 of 1992, for temporary injunction. The said I.A. was allowed and the court granted temporary injunction. The said temporary injunction was confirmed in appeal in C.M.A. No. 21 of 1992 filed by the defendants. Aggrieved by the abovesaid concurrent grant of temporary injunction by the courts below, the defendants have preferred this civil revision petition.2. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that even assuming that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit non-residential building after the death, in 1982, of his father A...
R.P. Ramaswamy Vs. M. Karuppiah thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ448
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 150 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur is against the dismissal order dated 11.11.1986 in his I.A. No. 130 of 1986 in the suit for amending the decree dated 18.8.1984. The plaintiff is vendor under the suit sale agreement dated 21.8.1981 whereby he agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant-respondent herein for Rs. 45,000. The respondent-purchaser admittedly paid Rs. 15,000 as advance as mentioned in the sale agreement itself but since the balance was not paid as per the sale agreement, the suit was laid on 15.9.1983.2. The relevant portions of the prayer in the suit are as follows:.it is prayed that Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pronounce judgment and decree 1. by directing the defendant to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 33,060 (including interest payable whereon till the date of plaint as per the sale agreement) with interest of Rs. 30,000 from 15.9.1983 the d...
S. Mani Vs. N.G. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ368
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The petitioner in this C.R.P. filed on 15.6.1992, O.S. No. 631 of 1992, on the file of District Munsif, Tirupathur, for permanent injunction (restraining the defendant-respondent from ejecting him from the suit land), and also filed therein I.A. No. .1779 of 1992 under Section 10, C.P.C. for staying the said suit till the disposal of T.R.A. No. 2 of 1992, on the file of Tenancy Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi, filed by himself on 18.6.1992, (i.e. subsequent to the filing of the above referred to suit) for recording him as tenant under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969. The said I. A. was dismissed and aggrieved by that, the plaintiff has filed this C.R.P. No. 1100 of 1993.2. Apart from the fact that Section 10, C.P.C. will apply only in the case when the two proceedings in question are 'suits' (vide; Diraviraj v. contemplates stay of trial of a suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit, but here, the abovesaid T.R.A....
Union of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondicherry Vs. Abdul Latiff ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ373
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 2nd May, 1986 passed in L.T.C.M.A. No. 25 of 1984 by the learned Additional District Judge of Pondicherry, modifying the order dated 13th September, 1984 passed by 'the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Karaikkal in M.R. No. 1 of 1977. The proceeding relates to a 'declaration filed under Section 7 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land), Act, 1973. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent is the owner of the land. His family consisted of himself, his wife and three unmarried daughters on the appointed day, namely, 24.1.1971. As per the provisions of the Act, within 30 days from the date as may be specified in the notification issued by the Government, every person who on the appointed day, held land in excess of the ceiling area, was required to furnish to the Authorised Officer within whose jurisdiction the holding of such person or the major part thereof is sit...
Raju Vs. Mohamadabi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ290
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 24.7.1986 passed in M.A. No. 54 of 1984 by the learned Appellate Authority under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reversing the order dated 17.8.1984 passed by the Rent Controller in I.A. No. 10 of 1984 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1982. The point for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceeding filed for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of eviction on 11.10.1983. An application to set aside the ex pane order of eviction was filed under Rule 18(3) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). There was a delay in filing the said application. Therefore, an application to condone the delay in filing was also filed. The Rent Controll...
Espee Agencies and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ377
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 622 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichy, for recovery of a sum of more than Rs. 1 crore in all. In the plaint, the plaintiff has also prayed for a direction to sell the mortgage properties shown in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and the hypothecated property shown in Schedule 'B' to the plaint without prejudice to the plaintiffs right of seizure and to auction the same either by way of private treaty or by way of public auction. The petitioners who are the defendants in the suit have not yet filed the written statement in the suit though it is nearly a year from the date of filing of the suit.2. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 489 of 1992 for appointment of a Receiver to take inventory of the stock-in-trade and other assets of the defendants and to take possession and auction the same and to remit the sale proceeds into court to the credit of the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Ultimately, th...
Sonnappa Iyer Vs. K.R. Ramuthaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ44
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendants have filed a memorandum of cross-objections. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:On 9.3.1977, the first defendant, who is the owner of the property entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit properly for a total consideration of Rs. 1,10,000 and received an advance of Rs. 25,000. It was agreed that the sale should be completed within a period of one year. Ultimately, a term was introduced by agreement that before the month of 'Thai' in the next year, possession will be handed over and the sale deed will be executed. The defendant was in need of money in order to perform his sons' marriages. He was also in debts and as a manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons, he had to meet the needs of the family. There was legal necessity for selling the property and that was the reason for the defendant agreeing to sell ...
Carborundum Universal Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Trustees of Port of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ133
Mishra, J.1. Second and third plaintiffs in C.S. No. 109 of 1973 have preferred this appeal invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, against a judgment by a learned single Judge of this Court, under which he has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. The first plaintiff in the suit Erilon Insurance Company Limited however, has not joined as a party in the appeal. The second plaintiff, it is not in dispute, placed an order with M/s. Carborundum Company. Niagara Falls. New york, for purchasing fused silicon carbine synthetic abrasive grains, silicon carbide and mullite grains and pursuant to the said order, 104 pellets, containing 2078 bags of the said commodity were entrusted by the American company to the first defendant respondent, that is, American Export Inbrandtsen Lines INC for shipment from Newyork to Madras. The ship 'S.S. Flying Cloud' belonging to the shipper-company, it is not in dispute, arrived at Madras port on 5.8.1971. The goods were dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »