Chennai Court July 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.
Dr. V.K. Muthusamy Vs. M/S. U.A. Habeen Firm by Partner U.A. Habeeb an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad137
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1002 of 1992 on the file of First Additional District Munsif at Erode.2. The petitioner filed the said suit againstthe respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,790.00 on the foot of a promissory note dated 6-7-1989. The respondents are contesting the suit. The petitioner during the pendency of the suit, filed LA. 1326 of 1993 under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the court below seeking permission to examine himself as a witness last in the suit after examining the other witnesses on his behalf. The Court below took the view that the petitioner has not given valid reasons for examining himself as a witness last after examining the other witnesses and consequently, the court below dismissed the I. A. 1326 of 1993. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below, the petitioner has fled the present Civil Revision petition.3 Rule 3A of Order 18 reads thus:--'Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he...
Boorasamy Padayachi Vs. Muthukumara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ596
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1646 of 1989 is the tenant with respect to the land owned by the respondent in that civil revision petition of an extent of 10.17 acres in S. Nos. 4/1, 4/2 and 148/2, Variyangaval village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. The landlord is the petitioner in CR.P. No. 2199 of 1993 and the tenant is the respondent therein. The landlord is the applicant in Contempt Application No. 33 5 of 1993. The respondents there are: (1) Mr. B. Vittal, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer and (2) the tenant. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as landlord, tenant and the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.).2. The landlord filed P. No. 808 of 1988 on the file of the Revenue Court, Lalgudi, for eviction of the tenant, under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955). He had therein that the tenant agreed to pay one-half of the yield every year and he estimated that 25 bags would be t...
Thulasi Ammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secrertary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ662
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioners in all the above writ petitions prayed for the issue of a writs of declaration declaring that the words 'on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1)' of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as unconstitutional as being contrary to the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent/Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, to calculate and pay compensation for the lands of the petitioners on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of payment of compensation.2. All these writ petitions are similar in facts and the contentions raised by the petitioners in their affidavits, and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are similar in facts and laws and hence all the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.3. A...
T. Subramania Chettiar and Others Vs. the District Supply Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad54
ORDER1. This writ petition by 16 kerosene retail vendors seeks a mandamus to direct the first respondent District Supply Officer, to renew their licences in accordance with law and supply kerosene to them. The above said 'licence' is actually called Registration Certificate under the relevant provisions of law, namely Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973.2. In this writ petition notice of motion was ordered on 17-5-1994. Then on 1-7-94 when the writ petition came up before me, 1 passed the following order :--'Learned Government Advocate to file counter on behalf of respondent and also to produce relevant records. Ten days time is given finally. Post for disposal two weeks hence'.(sic) posted again, no doubt, the learned Government Advocate wanted some further time for filing counter-affidavit and for producing relevant records. But, after going through the affidavit in support of the writ petition and after going through the one document produced before me (at 31-5-94)...
Ponds (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collr. of C. Excise, Madras-v Divisio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC159; 1994(73)ELT272(Mad)
ORDER In view of the above, I drop the proceedings initiated in this Office Show Cause Notice C. No. V/33/15/5/90-Cx.Adj./SCN No. 11/90 dated 25-9-1990'. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the second show cause notice dated 30-12-1991 was issued. At the same time, the Department went up in appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector of Central Excise before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (For short, CEGAT). The appeal was filed at the instance of the Board. In the appeal (E/Appeal No. 2344/92-A), the CEGAT held as follows : 'The view expressed by the Bombay High Court has also been endorsed by the Supreme Court while disposing of the SLP against that decision wherein the Supreme Court has observed, 'The material contained in the impugned notice could be used as independent material to support the final assessment, of course, after affording an opportunity to the respondents to meet the case.... This, the petitioners could do as part of the pr...
Workmen of Indian Bank Rep. by Federation of Indian Bank Employees Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ497Mad
ORDERMishra, J. 1. The Secretary General, Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union, representing the workmen of the Bank, has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the alleged directions as contained in a letter No. STAFF : IRC : KTV 84 dated August 21, 1984 (filed and marked as Exhibit 'A') and a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus not to unilaterally give effect to the notice dated November 2, 1982 issued under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The respondent is one of the Banks which were nationalised on July 19, 1969 by Central Act 5 of 1970. On August 18, 1973, the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank passed a resolution stating that the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union and the constituent Unions be granted recognition and further (a) 2 office-bearers of the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union be released from offi...
R.M. Ebrahim Vs. the District Registrar, Office of the District Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ40
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order dated 12.1.1994 of the respondent.2. According to the supporting affidavit originally there was a trust document executed by the petitioner on 23.9.1991 with reference to which the stamp duty under Article 64(a) of the Indian Stamp Act was paid. Subsequently by another document dated 13.7.1992 the same founder (the petitioner herein) transferred certain other properties of his to the same trust, that document was also stamped under Article 64(a) and it was registered by the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter the impugned notice dated 12.1.1994 has been sent to the petitioner. According to the said notice the abovesaid document dated 13.7.1992 has not been stamped properly and the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 21,488 is due from the petitioner. The notice further states that if the said deficit duty amount is not paid, coercive action would be taken to recover the same from the petitioner Aggrieved by the said notice this writ petition h...
D. Murugesan Vs. the Hon'ble Speaker (Thiru Sedapatti R. Muthiah) Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad260
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the General Manager of Dina-karan, a Tamil daily newspaper published from Madras and has preferred this writ petition challenging the vaiidity of the detention of Mr. A. Muthupandian (petitioner in W.P. 8529/94), News Editor of the said daily by the respondents 1 and 2 on an alleged breach of privilege of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the Assembly). It appears that a portion of the proceedings of the Assembly dt. 8-2-1993 were ordered to be expunged by the first respondent exercising his authority under Rule 281 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules framed under Art. 208(1) of the Constitution of India. The daily Dina-.karan, however, in its edition dated 9-2-1993 published the entire proceedings including the portion ordered to be expunged by the first respondent. On the aforesaid record two Members of the Assembly raised the question of privilege on 9-2-1993 itself. Thereafter the third res...
S. Chandrakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ429
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. Petition is seeking for quashing an order dated 20.3.1987 and seeking for an opportunity to prove that he belongs to Konda Reddy community. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community called Konda Reddy and a certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. On the basis of the certificate, after completion of the Pie-University education, petitioner joined medical course at Stanley Medical College. At the instance of the 4th respondent, a letter was written to the 2nd respondent to verify whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community. When he was pursuing his studies, a letter was served on the father of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that it is decided to cancel the certificate of community issued by the 5th respondent. Though the petitioner engaged a counsel, the enquiry before 2nd respondent was postponed from 22.12.1986 to 2.3.1987 and later an adjournment was promised by the 2nd respondent so as to give him an o...
Anver Vs. State, Represented by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1703
1. This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in C.A. No. 135 of 1986 for the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : The deceased Mohammed Ali Jinnah and this appellant were brothers living in separate huts in a terraced portion within the compound of Amar Ammal, situated in Attu Mandhai Pottel Street, Madurai. The deceased had three wives viz. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Kazim Bibi all living with him in the same hut in the upstairs portion. His sister Mariam Bibi also was living in another hut in the upstairs portion with her sons P.Ws. 3 and 4. The deceased was a drunkard and on the fateful night that is on 21-9-1985, at about 8.00 pm, he came to the house, quarrelled with his sister Mariam Bibi in the drunken state and gone out. He returned by about 11.00 pm. His sister told this appellant to takle the deceased for sending him to be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »