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.
S. Prabhavathi Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ14
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above Contempt Application has been filed to punish the respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot District, for committing contempt of orders of this Court dated 21.8.1992 made in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992. By that order, I set aside the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the respondent herein dated 15.10.1991, by which the respondent herein has rejected the applicant's request for the issue of community certificate on the basis of a secret enquiry conducted by him. This Court held that the respondent herein has no business to conduct a secret enquiry behind the back of the applicant and come to the conclusion that the applicant does not belong to Kurumans community. I further held that the procedure adopted by the respondent herein is not only illegal but also against the principles of natural justice. I also held that the applicant's father and his brother have certificates to the effect that they belong to Kurumans communi...
Vallabh Janardhan and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical Unive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ357
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners herein to sit for the first semester M.B.B.S. examination to be held in the first week of April, 1993 or any other date and issue hall tickets, to the said examination after collecting the necessary examination fee from the petitioners...2. All the petitioners applied for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93. The procedure for selection to the admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 was challenged before this Court, when the Government issued an order reserving a particular percentage of seats for the student is who studied under the C.B.S.E. syllabus. A Division Bench of this Court, after considering the issue raised by the petitioners therein, in Association of Private Schools Affiliated to the C...
P. Mahamani Vs. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ634
Thangamani, J. 1. The writ petitioner claims that in 1978 he passed the final examination conducted by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, New Delhi. As per the rules and regulations of the Institute, a candidate who has passed the final examination should undergo training for a specified period in a company recognised by the Institute for such purpose, and with the Registrar of Companies for 15 days before registering such candidate as a member of the Institute. In his case the Institute has exempted him from undergoing the said training since for seven years he had already worked as Manager (Accounts) in the National Textile Corporation (AP KK & M) Limited. While he was working in the National Textile Corporation (AP KK & M) Limited, the first respondent Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, Salem called for applications for appointment of the Financial Controller-cum-Secretary in the said Company and he applied for the Same setting forth all his qualifications. In his application...
Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. P. Sivagnanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1093Mad; (1993)IIMLJ645
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the award of the Labour Court in I. D. No. 381 of 1986 one by the management-Corporation against the order of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the conductor-first respondent and the other by the first respondent-conductor against the denial of back wages to him. 2. The Government by G. O. Ms. No. 2330, dated November 12, 1986 referred under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the question whether the non-employment of one Sivagnanam is justified, if not, to what relief he is entitled and to compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed. In pursuance of that, the matter came up before the Labour Court. Though many charges were framed and domestic enquiry was conducted by way of several charge sheets when the matter came up before the Labour Court, the conductor-first respondent in W. P. No. 16360 of 1991 gave up the objections with regard to the domestic enquiry. As such...
Jeevendra Nainar Vs. Smt. Kanakammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ118
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. The petitioner Jeevendra Nainar, it is said, borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,000 from the first respondent, Srimathi Kanakammal, wife of Krishnaji Reddiar on 21.7.1966 and executed a mortgage in her favour by mortgaging certain items of his landed properties. The first respondent appeared to have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1715 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam on the said mortgage and obtained a decree therefor.2. The petitioner appeared to have filed an application under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, for short 'the Act') before the second respondent the Special Tahsildar, Debt Relief, Tindivanam, praying for release of the mortgaged properties. The second respondent dismissed the said application. Consequently, aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent, the Sub-Collector, Tindivanam under Section 8 of the Act, who in turn on consideration...
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras and ors. Vs. Mrs. Prema R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ286
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Port Trust. The suit O.S. No. 1719 of 1993 has been filed by the respondent herein. The said suit is for a declaration that the Port Trust's communication dated 22.12.1992 to the plaintiff pursuant to Board's resolution dated 14.12.1992 is contrary to the provisions of the Madras Port Trusts Act and the Major Port Trusts Act and for a consequential injunction, restraining defendants 2 to 5 not to act as per the abovesaid resolution.2. The respondent/plaintiff admittedly was one of the five legal advisers to the Madras Port Trust and her term expired on 31.124992 itself. Pursuant to the abovesaid resolution dated 14.12.1992 three out of the abovesaid five legal advisers alone were retained for yet another term and the term of two others including the respondent/plaintiff was not extended. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the said suit after she having failed in a W.P. No...
E. Abdul Jaleel Vs. V. Pakkirisamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ586; [1994(68)FLR257]; (1994)ILLJ1181Mad; (1993)IIMLJ410
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant is the first respondent in W.C. No. 73 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli. The present first respondent V. Pakkirisamy was employed in a saw mill at Mayiladuthurai. On March 18, 1988 at about 12.30 p.m. there was an accident in the mill in which Pakkirisamy's left hand was cut and severed above the wrist by the saw, he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai and then to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Inspite of the treatment given, the wrist could not be attached. Thereupon, he filed W.C. No. 473 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming Rs. 22,400 as damages. He impleaded the appellant therein Abdul Jaleel as the first respondent and Parameswaran the present second respondent as second respondent in that application on the ground that the appellant was the original owner of the saw mill, that he j...
Thomas George Kuriyan Vs. S.A. Kharche, Proprietor, S.A. Kharche and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ569
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R. C. A. No. 428 of 1991, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 2861 of 1986. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed the petition for eviction against the tenant under Section 10(3)(A)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18of 1960,as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord the petition premises was let out for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500 with maintenance charges at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month. The petitioner is employed in the Indian Oil Corporation at Bombay. The mother and the son of the petitioner are residing in a rented premises. The landlord is not having any other premises of his own in the city of Madras. Hence, he required the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.2. In the counter filed by the tenant, the tenant accepted th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›