Chennai Court June 1994 Judgments
A. Xavier Joyapaul Vs. the Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner of Reven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ90
ORDER1. The petitioner, Mr. A. Xavier Jeyapaul, a resident of Kovilpatti, is said to be the owner of a match factory, In connection with his business, he would say he was required to travel to other States carrying huge sums of money in cash, as he found it more convenient to do business with buyers in other States in cash. As advised by his family members and friends, he applied for a licence to the Collector-Licensing Authority, Tirunelveli District (second respondent) to possess a revolver for his protection. The second respondent, it is said, called for reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti and the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who submitted their reports accordingly. After taking into consideration the reports so received, besides complying with the requisite other formalities, the second respondent, in his proceedings K. Dis. No. 111706/82(C4) dated 13-11-1982 rejected his application. 2. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal to the Special Commi...
Tag this Judgment!E. Venkata Naicker Trust, a Private Trust Represented by Its Manager, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ447
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 27 of 1985 on the file of Appellate Authority, Erode, in which the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1982 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Erode.2. Short facts are : The revision petitioner/landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of act of waste. That claim was resisted by the respondent/tenant, who would contend that only vacant site was leased out to him and superstructure thereon was put up by the tenant, that the owner of the vacant site is a public trust and as such the landlord, as trustee, cannot file a petition for eviction under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and he had not committed any acts of waste. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller had found all the points in favour of the landlord and had ...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C., Madras Vs. Christian Medical College, Vellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR390]; (1995)ILLJ289Mad
ORDERGovardhan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Judge, Vellore (Principle District Judge, Vellore), dated 4.5.1985 in E.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of 1984 filed under Section 75(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act praying to declare the Equipment Maintenance Department of the petitioner is not amenable to the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act since it is not a factory. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-hospital is integral part of the Christian Medical College, Vellore. The Medical College, has degree course and diploma course in 11 different specialities and postgraduate degree courses. Pursuant to the statutory requirement for the training of medical students in their course, the hospital, functions as an integral part of the Christian Medical College where the students get their practical training. The Medical Council of India has prescribed certain standard requirements to be fulfilled. The Equipment Maint...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Prabakaran Vs. Maheswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC606
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the girl, Preethi, allegedly of about 17 years of age. There is no dispute that the said girl is living with the second respondent at the present. The case of the petitioner is that the girl was kidnapped by the second respondent on 15-2-1994 while she was in her school. Since the girl has been taken out of the custody of the petitioner without his consent, it is claimed that she is in illegal custody and a writ of Habeas Corpus is prayed for securing her release.2. The second respondent has entered appearance and has stated in his counter affidavit that the girl Preethy is living, with him voluntarily and of her sweet will. She was about 19 years of age and lawfully married to him on 6-5-1994. It is also stated that the girl is now Pregnant. It is further submitted that after he and the girl started living together, a panchayat of the community was called on 4-3-1994, where the girl was voluntarily given to the parents of the second...
Tag this Judgment!Rajco Spinning Mills Vs. Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR260]; (1995)IILLJ326Mad
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This writ petition by Rajco Spinning Mills is for quashing the order dated May 23, 1994 of the first respondent, the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, Madras.2. As per the said order, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 18, 104 for the period April, 1992 to September 1992 as employees provident fund contribution together with family pension. According to the affidavit filed in support of the petition it appears, the petitioner-firm consists of only three partners and the persons who associated earlier with the firm and who have gone away from the firm have agreed to pay the said demand as per the release deed dated June 13, 1993 and hence the present petitioner is not liable. Further, it is also alleged in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as follows;'While so, the second respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry on May 6, 1994. The petitioners' representative appeared for the, enquiry to be conducted und...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Siddique and Co., by Partners and ors. Vs. Ghanshamdas and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ440
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order 36, Rule 10 of the Original Side Rules and Section 8(2)(b) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 against the judgment dated 29.5.1990 passed by Janarthanam, J. in the Insolvency Jurisdiction of this Court adjudicating the appellants as insolvents arid ordering that all assets and effects of the appellants vest in the Official Assignee of this Court for administration.2. It appears that the first respondent loaned Rs. 40,000 to the appellants on execution of a promissory note in his favour. Since the appellants did not honour their due by discharging the loan, the said respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of the said amount. The suit after due prosecution was decreed with costs. Even thereafter the appellants did not pay any amount and consequently the first respondent issued In-' solvency Notice No. 47/86 callin...
Tag this Judgment!The Employee's State Insurance Corporation, represented by Its Regiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ489
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Employees State Insurance Judge, Vellore (Principal District Judge, Vellore), dated 4.5.1985 in R.S.I.O.P. No. 1 of. 1984 filed under Section 75(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act praying to declare the Equipment Maintenance Department of the petitioner is not amenable to the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act since it is not a factory. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-hospital is integral part of the Christian Medical College, Vellore. The Medical College, has degree course and diploma course in 11 different specialities and postgraduate degree courses. Pursuant to the statutory requirement for the training of medical students in their course, the hospital, functions as an integral part of the Christian Medical College where the students get their practical training. The Medical Council of India has prescribed certain standard requirements to be fulfiled. The Equipment Mainten...
Tag this Judgment!Nangayar Ammal Vs. Kanthi Rajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad1
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 50 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate, Judge, Tuticorin, which in turn arose out of the order pased in R.C.O.P. No. 224 of !982 on the file of District Munsif of Tuticorin.2. The landlady is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(1) and under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by the Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the landlady, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1982 onwards till the date of filing the petition. In spite of the notice, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the rent and thereby committed wilful default in payment of rent, as contemplated under S. 10(2)(1) of the Act.The landlady also required the portion under the occupation of the tenant under S. 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act. The landlady's husband is carrying on bakery business in a rental...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ757Mad
1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Ranipet challenging the correctness of the common order passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in the claim petitions filed by respondents 2 to 86 herein under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The appellant company introduced a Retirement Benefit Scheme for the non-covenanted employees working in its specified units by General Office Order No. 26, which came into force on December l, 1943 in the Ranipet Unit with which we are concerned. While the first part of the Office Order related to retirement allowance, the second part provided for gratuity to those who were in the service of the company prior to 1947 and who did not qualify for pension. There was a settlement of disputes between the management and workers in 1956 which contained provisions for gratuity and retiring allowances. The Payment of Gratuity Act came into force on September 16, 1972. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!M.Y. Mohamed Ismail Vs. Sashi Sachdev, Bharat Surigical Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ511
ORDERThanikkkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and owner's occupation under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and by Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act?). During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act to collect the arrears of rent payable by the tenant, amounting to Rs. 21,000 from June, 1991 to December, 1991. The tenant filed a counter alleging that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition. The tenant also submitted that he was depositing the rent in the bank as per the passbook issued by the bank. Such deposit was made in his own name. According to the tenant, he need not pay the rent to the landlord since the pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »