Chennai Court October 1994 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.
P. Govindaraju Vs. S.P. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ254
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These three revision petitions arise out of a petition for eviction viz., R.CO.P. No. 284 of 1987 filed by the respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and causing damage to the property. When the petition was pending, the landlord filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for a direction to the tenant to pay the entire arrears of rent, which according to him amounted to Rs. 24,320 being the rent due for 38 months from May, 1986 to June, 1989. The case of the tenant was that he had paid the property tax regularly and he had in fact paid in excess than what was due from him. Under the agreement of tenancy, the landlord was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 988.50 by way of property tax and the tenant had agreed to pay any increase in the property tax. Taking that into account, the Rent Controller deducted a sum of Rs. 8,896.50 from the total amount claimed by the landlord and directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,425.50 within a particula...
Jayalakshmi Nataraj Vs. Jeena and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas265(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No 4792 of 1993, on the file of the XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner is the second accused in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. She is challenging that proceedings on two grounds, viz., that there is no overt act alleged against her in the complaint except merely describing her as a director and the person who has signed the complaint, Unnikrishnan, has not produced any authorisation or power of attorney to accept that he is competent to file the complaint on behalf of the complaint and, therefore, on these two grounds, the complaint against here is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 2. With regard to the first point, a paragraph 4 of the complaint, it is mentioned that this petitioner, who is the second accused, is the managing d...
R. Maheswari Vs. Secretary Selection Committee, Tamil Nadu Professiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad168
ORDER1. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. After completing her Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1993, the petitioner also improved her marks in Physics by taking an examination in March, 1994. In the year 1994 the petitioner appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination. The petitioner applied for the first year M.B.B.S. Course in Physio Therapy and Occupational Therapy. The last date for issue of prospectus and application forms was 15-7-1994 and the last date for submission of applications was also 15-7-1994, 5.30 p.m. The petitioner is said to have sent her application form duly filled up, on 14-7-1994 from the Gingee Post Office. The petitioner has expected the application form to reach the first respondent by 5.30 p.m. on 15-7-1994. At the time when the respondents called for the candidates for counselling, the petitioner attended the office of the first respondent and found that her name did not find a place in the...
Tip Top Plastic Industries P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)103; [1995]214ITR778(Mad)
Rangasamy, J.1. This petition is filed under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 128 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras. The petitioners are the accused in the above case for the offence under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The first petitioner is the company, the third petitioner is the managing director and the second petitioner is the director of the first petitioner-company. The first petitioner carries on the business of the manufacture and sale of suitcases, handbags, purses and other miscellaneous plastic goods. It has branches and sales depots outside the Madras city. For the year ended on March 31, 1981, the first petitioner submitted the return of income declaring the net income of Rs. 1,45,386. The assessment also was ...
Lucas India Service Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ615Mad
Somasundaram, J.1. Both these writ appeals arise out of the dispute referred to the Labour Court, Madras, in I.D. No. 22 of 1991, for adjudication between the management of Lucas India Service Ltd., Madras, and its employee one Syed Mazharuddin. For the sake of convenience, they will be referred to as 'the management' and 'the employee', respectively, in the course of this judgment. The appellant, in W.A. No. 1372 of 1993, is the management and the appellant, in W.A. No. 432 of 1994, is the employee. As the parties and the points involved in both the writ appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The employee joined the services of the management at Madras and was transferred to Bangalore by order dated November 26, 1984. The order was to take effect from January 2, 1985. The employee without obeying the said order of transfer challenged it in the civil court by filing O.S. No. 121 of 1985, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The said suit was dismiss...
Waheeda Begum Vs. S. Shanmughasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ22
ORDERN. Animugham, .J.1. Arguments were heard with the consent of the Bar for respective parties, as the question involved in these revisions is a simple one situate in a very narrow compass.2. The revision petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 222 of 1994, now pending on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, which is pending disposal for the relief of declaration of the right and title of the respondent herein as a tenant in the suit property and the consequential relief of injunction against him not to demolish the superstructures standing thereon.3. The matrix of the case seems to have been that the plaint for the abovesaid relief was filed originally against one P. Hussain, the first defendant and that during the pendency of the same on the basis of an encumbrance certificate obtained by the plaintiff and on coming to know that the revision petitioner along with two others, by name, Jameela Begum, Sadhiha Begum were very much involved in the titl...
P.K. Duraivelu Mudaliar Vs. S.P. Mohanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ184
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. As the point involved in this revision is within a very narrow compass at the request and consent of the Bar for the respective parties, I have heard the whole case in hand and pronounced the following Order:2. Brief facts of the case are extracted as hereunder: The tenant is the revision petitioner and eviction was sought for before the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 1570 of 1989 by the respondent herein, being the landlord, on the ground of owner's occupation, as the building is required for accommodation of his married daughter. As the matter was seriously contested after taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction and against which an appeal has been preferred which is pending in R.C.A. No. 698 of 1991, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras. In the appeal, by virtue of Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called as '...
C. Selvaraj (Died) and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ84
Srinivasan, J.1. It is better to set out in the common the facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions and the second appeal. We will refer to the parties according to their ranks in the second appeal.2. The dispute relates to door No. 124-F in Shenoy Nagar, Madras which originally belonged to the Corporation of Madras, (referred to hereinafter as the first respondent). The first floor of the said building was allotted to the father of the second respondent by name P.C. Sivanandam for occupation as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 28. The allotment was made under R.D.C.No. 35928/50, dated 29.7.1950. Asimilar allotment was made of the ground floor to the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5 by name C. Selvaraj under R.D.C. No. 5/50, dated 29.7.1950 on a monthly rent of Rs. 28.3. The father of the second respondent occupied the building on 15.8.1960, The exact date of occupation by Thiru Selvaraj is not available in the records. But it is admitted by ...
S. Palaniyandi and Anr. Vs. the District Collector, Collector's Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ573
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Having regard to similar facts and common questions of law that arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of conveniently by this common order.2. In short the facts leading to these writ petitions are: The first respondent called for application for grant of right to quarry in respect of certain quarry under Rule 8(1)(a) of The Tamil Nadu Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, (for short 'the Rules') in the District Gazette, Salem, the petitioners being repatriates, entitled for preference in the right of quarry, applied, for the quarries in Survey No. 492 of an extent of 1.10.0 hectares at Kannamoochi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, in Survey No. 6 to an extent of 5.00.0 hectares at Anaikattipalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District respectively. The first respondent after following the rules and regulations, granted lease in favour of the petitioners for the period from l4.7.1992 to 31.12.1994 and ...
Madras University Teachers' Association, represented by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ13
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. W.A. No. 1221 of 1994 is preferred against the common order dated 14.9.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 12233 and 12479 of 1994, by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12233 of 1994, which is the Madras University Teachers Association. In W.P. No. 12233 of 1994 it has sought for a direction to the first respondent to exercise his powers under Section 11(1) of the Madras University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and appoint a person to the office of the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University within a time-limit to be specified by the court. Learned single Judge has held as follows:(1) On the date when the Second Search Committee comprising of respondents 2 to 4 submitted a panel of three different names, namely on 28.2.1994, the Chancellor had before him a full complement of three persons all of whom were willing and available to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University.(2) The Second Search Committee comprising of responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »