Chennai Court July 1994 Judgments
S. Azeem Vs. M. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ455
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant, who succeeded before the Rent Controller, but lost before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein. The landlord sought eviction on two grounds : (1) user of the building for a purpose different from the one for which it was leased, and (2) requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The case of the landlord was that the building was leased out for non-residential purpose viz., furniture business. But, the tenant, has used it for residential purpose without his consent. It was also the case of the landlord that the building required demolition and he wanted to demolish the same and reconstruct. The tenant contested the proceeding and contended that the subject-matter of the lease was only land and the building was constructed by him. It was also his case that the original purpose of the lease was to use the same for residential as well as non-residential purposes. He also denied the bona fides of the landlord in requiring the building for d...
Tag this Judgment!R. Pounthai, Wife of G. Rajaram Vs. the Co-operative Tribunal (Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ424
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The facts of the case briefly stated are the following:The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 16,000 from the third respondent Co-operative Society to construct a house by mortgaging the property. When she failed to repay the amount of loan with interest in installments, an Arbitration Suit was filed against her for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,301.24 p. An ex parte award/decree was passed against the petitioner, when the petitioner failed to appear before the Arbitrator, in spite of service of summons. The third respondent took up the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 35/82-83 and contained an order for auctioning the house for realisation of the the amount due under the award. The petitioner filed an Appeal in C.M.A. No. 52 of 1985 before the first respondent, challenging the proposed auction sale. The said Appeal also was dismissed on 12.2.1986. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed contending that as required under Rule 56(6) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socie...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Lazor Detergents Private Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas699(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.99. Learned counsel for the appellant makes an oral application for grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. We are of the view that the case involves a substantial question of law of general public importance as contemplated by article 133(1) of the Constitution of India and in our opinion, the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, we grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. 100. Learned counsel also prayed for grant of stay of the operation of our judgment till the filing of appeal. We are not inclined to grant stay as we have dismissed the applications for rectification and there is nothing to be stayed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bangarammal Vs. M. Balamani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ443
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. One Salai Sivaprakasam, minor represented by his father and natural guardian R. Murugamalai, who is the obstructor is the appellant in the, above applications. The 1st respondent is the decree-holder and respondents 2 and 3 are the judgment-debtors in C.S. No. 145 of 1985. The obstructor has filed an application in Appln. No. 3314 of 1994 to set aside the order dated 13.6.1994 in E.P. No. 49 of the 1992 in C.S. No. 145 of 1985 made by the learned Master of this Court. Application No. 3315 of 1994 is again filed by the obstructor against the very same respondents for stay of the operation of the order dated 13.6.1994 in E.P.No.49 of 1992.2. It will not be out of place to mention that the 3rd respondent herein R. Murugamalai is the father of the minor appellant herein. An affidavit has been filed by the said 3rd respondent R. Murugamalai in the above two applications. The decree-holder after obtaining the decree in the above suit filed execution proceedings. The...
Tag this Judgment!K. Soosalrathnam Vs. the Divisional Engineer, National Highways Circle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad90
ORDER1. This writ petition seeks to quash the tender notification No. 5 of 1994 dated 7-5-1994 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to call for fresh tenders and award the work in question to the lowest bidder.2. The material allegations in the supporting affidavit by the petitioner are as follows:-- He is a registered contractor under class I category with the National'Highways Department throughout the State. The 2nd respondent floated the tender in the above referred to notification for purposes of two works under the National Highways Circle, Tirunelveli and Madurai-2 respectively. As per the said notification tender documents have to be received from the 1st respondent from 13-6-1994 to 21-6-1994, on paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards tender cost and Rs. 173/- towards sales tax in the treasuryaccount. The petitioner intended to participate in the said tender pertaining to Item No. 1 of the tender notification and paid the tender cost in the t...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Ranganatha Iyer Vs. the Principal Labour Court and Neyveli Lignit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ189Mad
ORDERP.S. Mishra, J.1. Petitioner has moved this Court by the two writ petitions, in one (W.P. 9906/84) for quashing of the proceedings in CP.No.966 of 1980 and the impugned order of the Principal Labour Court, Madras and in the other (W.P.No. 9907 of 1984) for quashing the order under which the Principal Labour Court, Madras, has dismissed his petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order of the Chairman- cum-Man-aging Director of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'the Corporation') under which he has been removed from service. Both these petitions have arisen because the respondent-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation has, in a proceeding, dispensed with the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that the order of the Chairman-cum- Managing Director in proceedings No. 17349/RI/3/75-16 and dated November 7, 1975 is ultra vires, incompetent, void and without jurisdiction.2....
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Muthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1997(58)ECC115
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by the first respondent and is now lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. Feeling aggrieved by the said detention, he has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the legal and constitutional validity thereof.2. It appears that the detenu is a travelling agent having his travelling agency known as 'G.M. Muthu Travels' at Virudhunagar, Kamarajar District. He had employed one Chinna Nagayasamy as his employee who is alleged to have worked in the said travel agency for few days. On the alleged request of the said Chinna Nagayasamy, the detenu arranged passport, visa and air-ticket for his. travel to Singapore on the understanding that the said person after obtaining a job in Singapore and earning money, will pay back the cost. It also appears that on 27.10.1993, the detenu had taken the said Nagayasamy to ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.S.T. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ483
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, notice was issued to the respondents. Accordingly, they have put in appearance through counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 7.7.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10008 of 1993. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 8.5.1993 and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli, to give notice to all representatives of the hereditary trustee and also the 2nd respondent (Executive Officer) and to pass suitable orders in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned single Judge has also further directed that till such time, the petitioner/appellant is permitted to continue as hereditary trustee. There is also a further direction that the 1...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ravikumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad58
ORDER1. These three writ petitions challenge the validity of Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The relevant portions of the said section run as follows:--'(1) Where the Board, after making inquiry under Section 16 and after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned parties, is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the sick industrial company should be wound up, it may record and forward its opinion to the concerned High Court. (2) The High Court shall, on the basis of the Board, order winding up of the sick industrial company and may proceed and cause to proceed with the winding up of the sick industrial company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). 2. The 1st respondent in all the writ petitions is the Union of India, represented by Counsel. Respondents 2 and 4 in all the three writ ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Ameer John Vs. Executive Officer, Sri Saptharisheewara Swamy Deva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ623
ORDERJanarthnam, J.1. The revision petitioner was the plaintiff while respondents were defendants in the suit.2. This suit property (Shop No. 89) is situate in village in Inam S.F. No. 131/3 of Sirudhaiyur Village, Lalgudy Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. It belongs to Arulmighu Saptharisheeswaraswamy Devasthanam, Lalgudy (second defendant). The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1413 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for declaration of his status as the tenant of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant-Devasthanam from effecting any change in the tenancy agreement with regard to the suit property in favour of the second or third defendant or any other person on their behalf till the disposal of the suit on merits.3. The plaintiff would claim that he became a tenant of the suit property in the year 1969 on payment of rent at a specified rate of amount and he continued to be so, as a tenant. Between th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »