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.
S.M. Syed Amina Beevi Vs. Thaika Sahib Alim and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC557
Raju, J.1. The petitioner in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is yet to be numbered but had to be posted for orders regarding the maintainability, challenges the return of the papers said to have been made by an endorsement of the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras date 15.6.1993. The Registry of this Court has entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of this revision and hence this revision was directed by me to be posted for orders.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the second respondent in the above revisiion, viz., the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras is not the competent authority to pass orders even for returning the papers and that if at all it is for the Presiding Officer of the Family Court to pass such orders in this regard. At this stage, this Court pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the objection is only that the Sheristadar has passed the orders, the papers f...
Nagappa Gounder and anr. Vs. Padmavathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC300
Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal, at the instance of respondents 3 and 4 in M.A.O.C.P.No. 476 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Dindigul, against the award passed therein, holding that the appellants herein are not entitled to any share in the compensation awarded to respondents 1 to 5, in respect of the death of one Kadirmuthu, in an accident that took place on 4.11.1988, involving the motor cycle TCL 235 driven by the deceased and the Van TCT 2656, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding so.2. According to the case of the widows and children of the deceased Kadirmuthu, the accident in which he lost his life, was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the van TCT 2656 and in respect of his death, compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- should be awarded to them. The claim so made, was resisted, among others, by the appellants herein on the ground that as parents of the deceased, t...
Madurai Ramanathapuram Mavatta Seetu Companigal Sangam and Others Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas686(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. In these writ petitions and also the writ appeals, the validity of several provisions of Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is challenged. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court has considered the validity of the provisions contained in the very Act in Shriram Chits and Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1994] 79 Comp Cas 298, and held that all the provisions of the Act are valid. Therefore, these writ petitions and the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed in the light of the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court. However, an argument is advanced before us that the validity of section 6(3) of the Act has not been specifically considered and, therefore, the same be considered in these cases. We may only refer to paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shriram Chits and Investments (P.) Ltd.'s case [1994] 79 Comp Cas 298 to meet this contention. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment of the Supreme Court read as foll...
Indian Overseas Bank Represented by the General Manager, Madras Vs. R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)IMLJ115
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.3.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 2273 of 1984. In the writ petition, the respondent herein sought for quashing the order in Ref. No. DO : GM; 664, dated 3.12.1975 issued by the General Manager of the appellant/Bank, terminating the services of the respondent. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the appellate authority is not a speaking order, and consequently has directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal afresh. Hence, the Bank has come up in appeal.2. We have been taken through the proceedings of the Board which are found in pages 82 to 85 of the typed set and also the findings of the enquiring authority which are found in pages 56 to 64 of the typed set. From the order of the learned single Judge it is apparent that the proceedings of the Board have not been looked into. What has been taken into consideration is only ...
V. Rangaraju Vs. the District Supply Officer, Trichy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad53
ORDER1. The petitioner's Sri Shanmu-gha Rice Mills is situated in Thondamandurai Village, Perambalur Taluk. Through thepower agent of the petitioner's maternal grandfather the petitioner purchased therice mill under a registered sale deed on 12-5-1993. It is alleged in the affidavit that the rice mill has been in exclusive possession, managemenl and enjoyment of the petitioner's vendor ever since 1970 and that the petitioner had purchased the mill for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,01,000/-along with the accessories, licence etc. It seems the rice mill stands in the name of one Krishnaswmi Reddiar (petitioner's vendor's grandfather) for the period ending with 31-3-1994. The petitioner had applied for the grant of licence in accordance with the condition No. 6 stipulated in the licence in Form IV under Rule 4(4) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation and Licensing) Rules, 1959. The application has been made in Form III as prescribed by the said Rules, by the petitioner. The petitio...
V. Uthirayamuthu Vs. District Collector Kanyakumari District and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad240
ORDER1. V. Uthiyamuthu (petitioner) was the licensee of IMFL Shop No. 1, Villukury, Kalkulam Taluk under Licence No. 16/KAL/92-93. The licence period was to expire on 31-5-1993. He, it is said, fiied an application for renewal on 30-4-1993 to the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari district (second respondent), after duly remitting a sum of Rs. 1,55,250/-towards the privilege amount, which is 15% more than the existing amount, the licence fee of Rs.2,500/- and Rs. 100/- towards application fee, in accordance with the provisions adumbrated under sub-clause (1) of Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules').2. The second respondent, on receipt of the renewal application, it is said, was stated to have issued a notice to him on 8-5-1993 directing him to show cause why the grant of renewal should not be withheld within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice besides directing him to appear for an enquiry on 17-5-1...
Paramount Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ258
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E. A.No.290 of 198, on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.2.The short facts are: The respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1971 on the fact of mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree on 4.3.1972 and final decree on 24.4.1976 in the court of Sub Judge, Chengalpattu. He filed some execution petitions, but those were not pursued and they were dismissed for non-prosecution. While, so, Saligramam where the mortgage property is situated was brought within the jurisdiction of Sub Judge, Poonamallee while so Act 42 of 1985 was passed ending the Original Side jurisdiction of Madras High Court to Saligramam and thus Saligramam where mortgage property is situated was brought within the original side jurisdiction of Madras High Court with effect from 2.9.1985. Then this E.P.No.61 of 1986 was filed on 24.3.1986, in Sub Court, Poonamallee. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.290 of 1987 raisi...
Ramasamy and ors. Vs. Selvambal Alias Parimalanayagi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ30
ORDERMishra, J.1. The instant proceeding is a glaring example of the abuse of the process of the court by the plaintiff/respondent Selvambal alias Parimalanayagi and other members of a family, their common ancestors being Veerappa Goundar. Veerappan's wife Manonmaniammal had five children viz., Ramaswamy alias Malayalathan, Dhanapakiyam alias Thaiyanayaki, Krishnammal, Manjini and Kannan alias Vairakannou. Dhanapakiyam has three children viz., Vazhmuni, Kannammal alias Valliammal and Ammayyee alias Rathinammal and Krishnammal has two children viz., Sakrapani and Selvambal alias Parimalanayagi.2. Krishnammal filed O.S. No. 261 of 1970 before the Principal District Munsifs Court, Pondicherry impleading Ramaswamy and Manjini Naicker as defendants 2 and 3 and Lakshamanaswamy, the present petitioner, who is a. purchaser and who is in possession of a property transferred by Ramaswamy and Manjini Naicker, for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed w...
Veerappan Vs. Kolanda Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ672
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, in I.A. No. 868 of 1993 directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station to give protection to the respondent herein. The respondent had filed O.S. No. 449 of 1993 for an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his enjoyment of the suit house bearing No. 8/62 by changing the tiles in the roof and from taking water from the suit common well by installing a single phase electric motor and for other suitable reliefs. Pending the suit, the respondent prayed for an injunction in I.A. No. 659 of 1993. The petitioner was taking time again and again in the said petition for filing counter. The petition was filed actually on 21.5.1993 but till 27.7.1993 no counter was filed by the petitioner, who was again praying for adjournment. In these circumstances, the trial court passed an order of interim injunction in favour of the respondent. Then the r...
G. Gopinath Vs. Ministry of Surface Transport and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ649Mad
Somasundaram J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated December 24, 1992 dismissing Writ Petitions 9135 of 1992, 10318 of 1992, 11302 of 1992 and 9091 of 1992. Writ Petitions 9135, 11302 and 9091 of 1992 have been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus for directing respondents 2 and 3 to transfer the appellants temporarily from List-A to List-B as Supervisors and Record Clerks till such time they are reallocated to any other registered employer. The prayer in Writ Petition 10318 of 1992, out of which Writ Appeal 360 of 1993 arises, is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in Writ Appeal 360 of 1993 bearing No. 131/91 GP4 dated July 7, 1992 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to transfer the appellant in W.A. No. 360/93 to List-B as Supervisor temporarily till such time he is reallocated to any other registered employer.2. The case of the appellants in W.A. 119, 360 and 799/93 i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »