Chennai Court September 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.
V. Nagarajan (Dr.) Vs. the Registrar, University of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)IMLJ291
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it is submitted that the arguments on the validity of the order dated 20.8.1993 passed in W. M. P. No. 29180 of 1992 filed in W. P. No. 20256 of 1992 will be the same as in the main W. P. No. 20256 of 1992. In view of this, by consent of both sides, we have also taken up W. P. No. 20256 of 1992 for final disposal along with this appeal. 2. Head the writ appeal and the writ petitions for final disposal. 3. The writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 24th August, 1993 passed in W. M. P. No 29180 of 1992 filed in W. P. No. 20256 of 1992. Learned single Judge has refused to stay the order of suspension dated 30th November, 1992, challenged in the writ petition. However, he has directed that 50% of the salary shall be paid to the appellant/petitioner as subsistence allowance. 4. In the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner has sought for quashing the official Memorandum D-1 (B) TE/92/3678, dated 30th November, 1992 ...
Union of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondicherry Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ358
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These two writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 21.1.1993, passed in W.P. Nos. 3642, 9391 and 14035 of 1992. W.P. No. 3642 of 1992 was filed by Sri P. Manogaran, Secretary, Pondicherry Bar Association, whereas W.P. No. 9391 of 1992 was filed by the Pondicherry Bar Association and W.P. No. 10435 of 1992 was filed by one R. Vadivelu. The prayers made in W.P. Nos. 3642 and 9391 of 1992 are similar inasmuch as they have sought for quashing of the appointment of Sri Edward Kumar, V.A., Special Officer-cum-Subordinate Judge, Judicial Department, Pondicherry, with a only difference that in W.P. No. 9391 of 1992, a writ of quo warronto to oust him from the office and whereas in W.P. No. 10435 of 1992, apartfromchallengingthe appointment of Sri Edward Kumar, V.A., the appointment of S.R. Pushpavalli, L. Veeranath Rao, G. Patric and G. Rajesurya, is challenged. Learned single Judge has held that the appointment of Sri Edward Kumar is not in accordance wi...
S.O. Rajammal Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Board, Nungambakkam, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad191
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ref. Na. Ka. No. 52981/93(1) V2 dated 1-9-1993 and to direct the respondent, not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in so far as shop Nos. 1 and 2 of Bannariamman Temple, Bannari, Sathya-mangalam is concerned.2. Consequent upon the Notification dt. 13-6-1993, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H. R. & C.E. Board, Erode, for inviting sealed tenders for grant of Licence to run coconut and fruit stalls (includig flower) in the Arulmigu Bannari Mariamman Tem-pie, Bannari, Salhyamangalam for the fasli 140 i.e. from 1-7-1993 to 30-6-1994, the petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction held on 6-7-1993 in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 on a monthly rental of Rupees 15.555/- and Rs. 24,555/- for the two shops respectively. Though there was a condition in the tender that the successful bidder should deposit the entire 12 months rental in ...
Duraisingan and Senthil Vs. State, Inspector of Police, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT641(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners three in number while seeking their bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code relied on the legal ground that Section 50 Clause (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, has not been complied with and that such non-compliance amounts to a clear violation of the mandatory directions of the above section and they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected to the grant of relief on the ground that even assuming that before conducting a search, if the Searching Officer failed to inform the option provided in the Act to the accused and ascertain as to whether they are willing to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a nearest Magistrate, it is not a mandatory violation and that as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief, as claimed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would object further, that even on facts of this case, since no search was conducted, the pe...
Sumitha Srinivasan Vs. the Registrar, Anna University and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ158
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. Though C.M.P. Nos. 5501 and 5502 of 1993 filed in the writ appeal have come up for orders, as the arguments in both the G.M.Ps. and the writ appeal are going to be one and the same, we have heard the writ appeal itself for final disposal.2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22nd December, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19289 of 1992. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in writ appeal.3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit her to the first year of B.Tech. (Industrial Bio-Technology) Degree Course in Anna University, Madras, for the year 1992-93. The admissions were made on the basis of the results of the entrance examination. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category. She did not secure marks sufficient to be admitted in the first round itself. Therefore, she was to wait till th...
Arulmigu Soundiamman Deity Koil Vs. B. Gopal Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ288
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revisdion petition is directed against the judgment in C.M.A.No.11 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the order passed in Order P.No.2 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.2. The short facts are: The respondent had claimed the benefits of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act against the revision petitioner in Order P.No.2 of 1981 and that claim was resisted by the revision petitioner. After enquiry, learned District Munsif had held that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the Act and further held that the entire demised property is necessary for the enjoyment of the tenant and had also fixed the value of the same at Rs. 34,000 and also directed deposit of the amount within a periqd of six months from the date of the order. Aggrieved' by the said order, the revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal in CM.ANo.36 of 1982...
Marudaveeran Moopan Vs. U.K. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ518
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 325 of 1987 in Petition No. 1379 of 1986 on the file of Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Lalgudi.2. Short facts are : The respondent had filed petition for eviction against the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. After enquiry, the Revenue Court had found that there was arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 5,135 and had passed an order on 21.4.1987, directing deposit of the said amount on or before 31.5.1987, in default of which, order of eviction will follow. The revision petitioner had not deposited the arrears within the peri of specified viz. 31.5.1987. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. No. 325 of 1987 for eviction. In that E.P. he paid Rs. 1,570 and had prayed for time for payment of the balance. The petition was posted finally on 27.10.1987, on which date, he did not appear in court. Holding that still a sum of Rs. 3,565 was not paid by the respondent...
Pulavar Nellai A. Ganapathy Vs. the Secretary to Government of India, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad33
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on thursday the 26th day August 1993; upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Ravindran for M/s. Sasikala Jacob and H. Rajashekar, Advocate for the petitioner, Court made the following order-The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus for being the Secretary, Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Central Secretariat, New Delhi the first respondent herein from considering the recommendations made by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu State Level Committee for National Award to teachers for 1993 the second respondent herein and consequently directing the Chairman for Tamil Nadu State Level Committee for National Award for Teachers, 1993 the second respondent herein to consider the name of the petitioner for recommendation to the National Award to teachers 1993.2. The petitioner is a retired Headmaster of the Gov...
N. Arumugham Vs. M.K. Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas296(Mad)
Thangamani, J. 1. The petitioner is the accused in S. T. C. No. 3139 of 1991, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. The respondent herein filed the complaint stating that on June 27, 1991, the petitioner gave a post-dated cheque bearing the date September 1, 1991, and when it was presented for collection on September 5, 1991, it was returned with an endorsement 'Effects not yet cleared, please present again.' The respondent informed the petitioner about the return of the cheque. On the request of the petitioner, the respondent again presented the cheque for collection on September 23, 1991. The same was returned on September 24, 1991, with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Thereupon, the respondent sent a notice dated September 28, 1991, to the petitioner informing about the return of the cheque. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner gave a reply on October 4, 1991. The petitioner has also not made any arrangement to pay the money covered by the...
Asstt. Director of Revenue Intelligence, Mad. Vs. Abdul Rasheed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT636(Mad)
1. This petition, under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 14, Gopalakrishna (Iyer) Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, the complainant, praying for the cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras to the respondent by name Abdul Rasheed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3732 of 1993 dated 23-7-1993.2. But for the interesting legal question being raised in this case, I do not propose to interfere with the order of bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge noted supra.3. The facts which led to the prosecution against the respondent herein are stated in brief as follows : On the basis of an intelligence about the commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act that the respondent herein was going to receive narcotic drug from one Mahesh who was arriving by Grand Trunk Express on 8-7-1993, the petitioner herein, who is the complainant and his staff, main...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »