Chennai Court November 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.
K. Sundaradoss Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ507
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Apiary Assistant on 19.9.1960. He was promoted as an Apiary Keeper on 17.9.1962. On 9.4.1964 he was transferred and redesignated as Bee Fieldman. He was ousted from service and again appointed as Junior Bee Fieldman in the scale of Rs. 80-2-100 by proceedings dated 4.8.1969. By another proceeding dated 18.9.1969 the petitioner was posted to the Circle Station, Kulithalai. He was fitted in the scale of Rs. 100-4-120 being the scale of a Circle Bee Fieldman. In the proceedings dated 29.2.1980, the Assistant Director Village Industries, Salem, pointed out that the petitioner was only a Junior Bee Fieldman and not a Circle Bee Fieldman. He also refers to the proceedings of the Board dated 9.12.1978 in this regard. As against that the petitioner made a representation on 20.8.1981 stating that he had been working only as a Circle Bee Fieldman and there was no necessity to re-fix his scale of pay. This representation of the petitioner dated...
Rukmani Devi and ors. Vs. R.M. Lakshmandoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ4
Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order appointing the defendant in the suit as Receiver till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the properties described in Schedule A belong to their father and on his death, they devolved on them as well as the defendant. The father died on 15.3.1982 at Madras. The properties described in Schedule B are stated to belong to the mother of the parties. She died on 9.11.1991. There also the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to equal share. Hence, the prayer in the suit is for partition and separate possession of plaint Schedule properties and allot 1/6 share in all the properties to each of them.2. The defendant contests the same by putting forward a will in his favour by his father with regard to the A Schedule properties. With regard to the C Schedule properties the defendant claims that he is entitled to 2/7 share while the plaintiffs are each entitled to only 1...
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Supply and Drainage Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ71
ORDERRaju, J.1. When the writ miscellaneous petitions came up before this Court for hearing, it was considered having regard to the nature of the relief sought for and the stage of the proceedings, that the main writ petitions themselves can be taken up for final hearing. Hence, the writ petitions themselves have been taken up for hearing. Since similar and identical issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board for whose benefit the lands in question covered by the impugned proceedings came to be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We are concerned with Award No. 4 of 1987 said to have been passed on 20.1.1988 by the first respondent. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the respective owners and persons interested who are arrayed as respondents in addition to the authorities of the State...
Seyadu Beedi Company, Tirunelveli Dist. Vs. Regional Director, Esic, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC261; [1995(71)FLR815]
Govardhan, J. 1. This appeal is against the order passed by the E. S. I. Judge, Tirunelveli dismissing the E. S. I. O. P. No. 3 of 1983 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 2. The appellant's case is briefly as follows : There were never more than 20 persons employed in the applicants' establishment. The applicant cannot be stated as a 'factory' under any law. The Employees' State insurance Act is not applicable to the applicant. As per the Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 10 paise per 1,000 beedies is being paid to help the beedi workers. Therefore directing the applicant to pay contribution under any other Act is not valid. While so, the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation has written several letters commencing from 23-7-1981 demanding contribution of Rs. 19,485.50 by the applicant. On the explanation given by the applicant, it was reduced to Rs. 9,725. The application is for declaration that the said amount should not be collected from ...
Seyadu Beedi Company Vs. the Regional Director, the Employees' State I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ90
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge, Tirunelveli dismissing the E.S.I.O.P. No. 3 of 1983 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act.2. The appellant's case is briefly as follows: There were never more than 20 persons employed in the applicant's establishment. The applicant cannot be stated as a 'factory' under any law. The Employees' State Insurance Act is not applicable to the applicant. As per the Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 10 paise per 1,000 beedies is being paid to help the beedi workers. Therefore directing the applicant to pay contribution under any other Act is not valid. While so, the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation has written several letters commencing from 23.7.1981 demanding contribution of Rs. 19,485.50 by the applicant. On the explanation given by the applicant, it was reduced to Rs. 9,725. The application is for declaration that the said amount should not be collected from the appli...
Kumara Pillai and ors. Vs. Somasekaran Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ180
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The fifth respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal one Gopala Pillai died on 2.1.1986 during the pendency of this civil miscellaneous appeal . The appellants have filed these petitions through the first appellant contending that the first respondent got the information of the death of Gopala Pillai only 12.7.1993 from their Advocate at Madras on being informed by the advocate for the respondent and therefore, after making enquiry they are filing these petitions. The petition in C.M.P. No. l 1679 of 1993 is for excusing the delay of 2996 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the fifth respondent. C.M.P. No. 11680 of 1993 is a petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the fifth respondent. C.M.P. No. 11681 of 1993 is a petition to bring the respondents 93 to 98 as legal representatives of the deceased fifth respondent. C.M.P. No. 11682 of 1993 is a petition for appointing the 95th respondent as the guardian of the mino...
K.R. Krishnan Vs. P. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas608(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note dated August 15, 1990, to recover a sum of Rs. 18,375. Before numbering the suit, it was posted before the court, since, according to the office, proper stamp duty was not paid on the promissory note. The lower court came to the conclusion that it is a promissory note otherwise payable than on demand and, therefore, stamp duty is payable as per article 49(b) of the Stamp Act. The trial court, therefore, directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty before admitting the plaint and before August 16, 1993. It is against that order that the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner herein submitted that the suit promissory note is properly stamped since it is not a promissory note otherwise payable than on demand. According to learned counsel, even though the words 'on demand' do not find a place in the ...
E. Subramaniyan Vs. J.N. Esupatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC398
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 148 of 1992 for recovery of certain amount due on a promissory note dated 9-7-1989. The promissory note was executed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. There is no words on 'no demand' in the Promissory note. Hence the trial court came to the conclusion that it is a promissory note, otherwise payable on demand, and therefore the stamp duty, is payable as per Section 49(b) of the Stamp Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to pay stamp duty of Rs. 300/- and penalty of Rs. 3,000/- before 10-6-1994. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. According to learned counsel apperaing for the plaintiff/petitioner, the trial Court was not correct in stating that the promissory note in question is one otherwise payable on demand, and, therefore, the stamp duty is payable Under Section 49(b) of the Stamp Act. According to learned counsel, the promisory note is stamped properly ...
R.S. Visalakshmi Ammal Vs. Manilal R. Joshi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ319
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. landlady is the petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. The landlady filed three petitions for eviction against three tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petition - premises is situate at No. 24, Amman Koil Street, Park Town, Madras-3. The landlady purchased the petition - premises. The landlady is residing in Ekambarakuppam in Andhra Pradesh. According to the landlady she has no premises of her own in the City of Madras. She is carrying on business in Madras along with other partners. She is having two sons and one daughter. One son studied upto B.Com. The other son studied upto Plus II. The daughter is studying in VIII Standard. She wants to give better education to her children at Madras. She is also not in sound health. In order to get better treatment, she wants to come and live in her house i...
S.K. Kumaraswami and ors. Vs. S.R. Somasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ322
Srinivasan, J.1. These three matters arise out of the same suit O.S. No. 1101 of 1987. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank in the suit.2. C.R.P. No. 2338 of 1994 is against an order dated 23.12.1993 made by the trial Court on the preliminary issue of payment of Court-fee paid in the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners therein. The plaintiff, the 7th and 9th defendants are the respondents. The 9th defendant was later given up in the revision petition. C.R.P. No. 2339 of 1994 is against an order of the same date, made in I.A. No. 452 of 1993 permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint by substituting 'Section 25(d) in the place of 'Section 40' of the Court-fees Act in paragraph 21 of the plaint. CM. A. No. 844 of 1994 is against an order made on the same date in I.A. No. 1358 of 1987 granting injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner till the disposal of the suit.3. The plaint was ori...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »