Chennai Court August 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.
B.K. Jinnah Vs. K.P. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ255
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The judgment-debtor in E.P.No.23 of 1992 in O.S. No. 33 of 1985 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin, has come forward with this revision petition. The said E.P. is for executing the specific performance decree obtained in the said suit by the respondent-plaintiff. The said E.P. was filed for execution of the sale deed pursuant to the decree. The impugned order in the abovesaid E.P. is dated 19.11.1992.2. Even at the outset, I must state that a certified copy of fair order in the said E.P. has not been produced at all by the revision petitioner, even though it has been held by this Court that the production of such copy of the fair order cannot be dispensed with. Anyway, going into the merits of the case, I find from the certified copy of the E.P. petition and orders thereof, filed by the petitioner that on 19.11.1992, the following order has been passed. 'Expenses paid. For production of fair deed 7.12.1992'.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitio...
Raju Vs. A. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ430
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This revision petition is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the order dated 19th September, 1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli, in R.C.A. No. 1 of 1985. The respondent-landlady filed the application under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act alleging that the petitioner/tenant has been in wilful default in the payment of rent and that the schedule premises is required for the use and occupation of her son who is an Excise Officer of the State Government. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have negatived the ground pleaded under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. As far as the ground pleaded under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, both the authorities have concurrently held that the landlady bona fide requires the schedule premises for the use and occupation of her son. Accordingly, an order for evic...
Fenner Garments Vs. Dy. Regional Director, E.S.i.C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ754Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated July 19, 1993, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 12976 of 1993. At the stase of admission of the writ appeal, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, he is represented through a counsel. Hence, the writ appeal is heard for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner - appellant sought for quashing the order dated June 28, 1993 passed by the respondent in his proceedings bearing No. 51-8718/11 1NETV, directing the petitioner - appellant to pay the contribution in respect of certain employees, as stated in the impugned order. The respondent, in all, demanded a sum of Rs. 21,803.79. The learned single Judge has rejected, the writ petition on the ground that it is open to the petitioner - appellant to approach the Court under Section 75 of the Employees* State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therefore, the learned single Judge has held that no interference is called fo...
Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Ramanan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC50; 1994(70)ELT519(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 4th March, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 2648 of 1993. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 5-2-1993 passed by the appellant refusing to renew the licence granted to the respondent. Hence, the respondent in the writ petition has come up in this appeal. 2. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows : (i) Whether at the time of renewing the customs house agent's licence, it is open to the Collector of Customs to insist upon that the applicant should satisfy the conditions laid down in Public Notice No. 307/85. (ii) Whether the second renewal of such licence is permissible. 3. The respondent was granted a customs house agent's licence on 22-2-1982 under R/158/IMP/CHA. That licence was renewed for a period of 3 years upto 21-1-1985. Again, it was re-issued on 17-10-1984 for a period of one year from 17-10-1984 to 16-10-...
Jagadeeswaran Vs. Federal Bank, Pollachi Branch and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ297
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order in E.P.No.523 of 1984 in O.S. No. 1155 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Pollachi.2. Short facts are: The 1st respondent had filed suit against the revision petitioner, the second respondent and one Padmavathi, arraying them as defendants 2,3 and 4 respectively and obtained money decree. To realise the decree debt, the 1st respondent had filed E.P.No.523 of 1984, praying for arrest of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent Raghavan. Later the 1st respondent had given up the 2nd respondent Raghavan. The revision petitioner, who was the 1st respondent in the court below has resisted the execution petition, putting forth a plea of no means. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif had rejected the plea of no means and ordered arrest. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent in the court below has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. P.G. Xavier, the learned Counsel appearing for ...
Devaki Ammal Vs. Raman and Brothers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ458
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition against the order dated 2.9.1990 to I.A. No. 1005 of 1991 filed by defendants 1,3 and 4 (respondents herein) praying for condonation of delay of 621 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.3.1989 in O.S. No. 1297 of 1987 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said order allowed the said application on condition that the said defendants paid a sum of Rs. 500 as costs within 30.9.1992. The said defendants having complied with the said condition, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.2. The court below came to the conclusion that on 19.7.1990 itself the defendants had knowledge of the ex parte decree since the bailiff, in executing the decree, has reported that when he went to deliver possession of the suit property pursuant to the said possession decree given, 4th defendant was present and objected to the delivery of possession. Thus, ...
T. Annakodi Ammal Vs. K. Ethiraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas870(Mad)
Arunachalam J.1. The petitioner is the private complainant in C. C. No. 9364 of 1989, on the file of VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. She preferred her complaint on November 25, 1989, before the trial Magistrate, alleging that the respondent had committed offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She had alleged that on April 15, 1989, the respondent had handed over to her two cheques for Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 drawn on the State Bank of Saurashtra for the discharge of his liability as detailed in the complaint. Both the cheques were presented for encashment by the petitioner through the Indian Overseas Bank, Royapuram, soon thereafter. Both the cheques were returned by the banker, once on April 10, 1989, with an endorsement, 'funds expected, Present again' and again on April 12, 1989, with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The petitioner did not choose to issue any notice to the respondent soo...
Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Gunsekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ166Mad
ORDERBaktha Vatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Award in Complaint No. 1 of 1987 in I.D.No. 62 of 1982passcd by the second respondent dated May 23, 19912. The first respondent originally joined Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited as Helper in the year 1989 on daily wages and was subsequently absorbed into monthly cadre. He was transferred to Thanthai Pcriyar Corporation in the month of April 1983 and he was redesignated as Junior Trademan. On June 11, 1986, one duty driver Palani stopped Bus TML 8208 at Chingleput bus depot opposite to tyre section for change of stepney which got punctured and went out for toilet. In the meanwhile the first respondent moved the vehicle in reverse to take it outside the gate and in the process the ladder of the vehicle hit one Gangadurai, technical trainee, who was coming from the rest house of research trainees. The result was that the said Gangadurai fell down and died. Seven charges were framed against the petitioner. In the domestic enqu...
Sultan Hardware Corporation and ors. Vs. Ct. Meiyammai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ442
ORDERRaju, J.1. The tenants who are unsuccessful in both the courts below are the petitioners in the above revision petition. One PL. Chidambaram, the erstwhile landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No. 5632 of 1982 on the file of the Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes at Madras, praying for eviction of the tenants on grounds of wilful default, commission of acts of wastes and material alteration of the building without the written consent of landlord and bona fide requirement of the portion under the occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation for the respondents' business under Sections 10(2), (1), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings, (Lease and Rent Control), Apt, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The tenants contested the claims of the erstwhile landlord for eviction and recovery of possession on the above grounds, by filing a detailed counter affidavit. During the pendency and trial of the petition, after giving deposition, the erstwhile landlord died ...
M. Anandan Vs. Ayyanna Gounder Memorial Trust Represented by Its Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ533
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 21.4.1993 passed by a learned single Judge in C.M.A. No. 497 of 1993. That appeal was preferred against the order dated 21st April, 1993 passed in I.A. No. 1513 of 1990 filed in O.S. No. 1217 of 1989.2. Facts that give rise to the present appeal are as follows: There is a Trust known as Ayyanna Gowder Memorial Trust at Coimbatore. O.S. No. 1217 of 1989 has been filed on 29th March 1989 in the Sub Court, Coimbatore for the following reliefs:(a) Setting a scheme for the administration of the 1st plaintiff Trust, viz. Ayyanna Gowder Memorial Trust providing for the formation of an administration Committee in accordance with the objects of the Trust as reflected under the Trust Deed dated 6.3.1948 and also providing for various safeguards with regard to collection of the rents and monies and also with regard to the expenditure etc.(b) Directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts with regard to the collect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »