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.
Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Suganesan and Co. and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC715; 1996ACJ1224; [1995]82CompCas487(Mad)
Govardhan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The averments in the plaint are as follows : One Jayapathy was a permanent employee of the plaintiff as mazdoor. On October 28, 1975, a about 2.20 p.m., while he was proceeding on his cycle along the West Quay Road within the port trust premises, the lorry bearing Registration No. MSY 8638 driven by one Devarajan and belonging to the first defendant, came from behind, hit and ran over him. The accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, in not complying with the speed restriction inside the harbour premises. Even though Jayapathy was given first-aid at the port trust hospital and sent to the General Hospital, he died on the same day. They plaintiff paid Rs. 21,000 (rupees twenty-one thousand only) to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of th...
Thanikachalam and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer I, Additional Labour Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR215]
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitioners it is not in dispute, were originally appointed as drivers in the Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu wherein existed a lorry unit and served in the said capacity in the Lorry Unit and Supply Department of the Government ever since their there recruitment in the year 1968. Prior to 1972, it is also not in dispute the Government of Tamil Nadu had many buses operated as part of the Government's functions having accordingly a Transport Department and employees as drivers in the said Department. In January, 1972, the entire city operations of the buses were handed over to the 2nd respondent herein i.e. Pallavan Transport Corporation (Metro) vide G.O. No. 86. Transport Department, dated 8.11.1972, the Government treated all employees of the Transport Department including the drivers transferred to the service of the 2nd respondent with effect from 1.1.1972, thus extending the application of the fundamental rights to benefit such employ...
S.A. Jamal Shah Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2771
1. The petitioner was the third accused in C.C. No. 306 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge (Sessions Judge designated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), Madurai. 2. He, on trial, for refraction or violation of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985 - as amended by Act No. 2 of 1989 - for short 'NDPS Act') was found guilty, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of one lakh of rupees, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred Appeal No. 319 of 1994 on the file of this Court. Along with the said appeal, he also filed the present petition praying to suspend the sentence so imposed on him and release him on bail, pending disposal of the appeal. 4. On this petition, notice had been ordered to the State represented by the Intelligence Officer, Directora...
Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer, Railway Workshop Vs. S. Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ873
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour & Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli, dated 9.1.1986 in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 47 of 1984.2. The applicant in his application has stated as follows: The applicant is employed under the opposite party and he was injured by an accident on 15.9.1982 in the course of his employment. The monthly wages of the applicant is Rs. 962.47. The applicant was treated as an in-patient in the Railway Hospital, Golden Rock, for about a month. The Chief Medical Officer fixed the percentage loss of the earning capacity at 10 per cent and an amount of Rs. 4,200/- was sanctioned as compensation by the A.C.M.E. but the compensation was not paid. Hence the application.3. The respondent contends that claim is barred by limitation, the applicant was receiving a pay of Rs. 1,034.64 per month and not Rs. 962.47, that the applicant is not an employee under the Workmen's Compens...
K. Ramasamy, Prop. Ramavilas Bus Service and ors. Vs. T.P. Thangaraj, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ220
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the order passed in Appeal No. 985 of 1986 on the file of State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras, in which the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal reversing the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode in R. No. 68221/B1/85, dated 26.5.1986.2. Short facts are: The respondents had filed application for variation of the permit conditions in respect of the route Kangeyam to Tiruchengode. The respondents were having six singles between Kangeyam and Tiruchengode. They wanted variation by having four singles, but having the route extended upto Salem. The revision petitioners had objected to the same. They are objectors Nos. 1,3, 13 and 11 respectively. After hearing the objectors, the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District at Erode had dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal in Appeal No. 985 of 1986 before the State Transport Appell...
Alagumani Vs. K. Shanmughum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ64
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 1032 of 1986 on the file of Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), in which the learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 2710 of 1984 on the file of Rent Controller (IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras).2. Short facts are: The respondents had filed petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1.10.1983 to 30.6.1984. That was resisted by the revision petitioner. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller found that there was wilful default in payment of rent and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had filed R.C.A. No. 1032 of 1986 and having failed there also, has come forward with this revision.3. Mr. Narayanaswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that at the time of the earlier R.C.O.P. against the ver...
M.K. Raghavan Vs. M.K. Sarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ619
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The same petitioner in all these revision petitions has come to this Court after committing following several defaults.1. He was the defendant in O.S. No. 9073 on the file of the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and he allowed himself to be set ex parte.2. Then he allowed the final decree to be passed on the said suit for accounting ex parte against him on 24.2.1990.3. Then, when he filed I.A. Nos. 6532 and 6533 of 1990 (to set aside the said ex parte disposals) he allowed them to be dismissed for default in about September, 1990.4. There was delay of 404 days on his part in filing petitions for restoration of the above said I.As.5. Then when he filed I.A. Nos. 20542 and 20543 of 1991 for condoning the said delay and when the court subsequently passed the conditional order dated 13.4.1993, allowing the said I.As. on condition of his paying Rs. 400 in each of the petitions on or before 26.4.1993, he failed to fulfil the said condition.6. Then when, tho...
Padmavati Ammal Vs. Gopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad135
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 1197 of 85 on the file of the appellateauthority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) in which the learned appellate authority had allowed the appeal, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller (XI Judge. Court of Small Causes, Madras) in R.C.O.P. No. 3762 of 1983.2. Short facts are:-- The respondent; tenant had filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (which I shall hereafter refer as the Act) seeking for permission to deposit the rent in court. In the petition he has alleged that he was the tenant under the petitioner landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/- as per English Calendar, that he had been paying rent regularly, but he had been refusing to receive the rent from October, 1982 and despite his repeated notices to the landlord to inform the bank in which rent is to be deposited, he had not sent any reply and since he continu...
Nagalakshmi and Another Vs. Thirugnanasambandam Alias Gnanam and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad120
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows : The B Schedule properties in the plaint belonged to one Subramania Vaithiyar who died intestate on 14-12-1970. Most of these properties were his ancestral properties and some were acquired ..... by him with the aid of the income from the ancestral properties. The plaintiff is the son of Subramania Vaithiyar through his first wife Sivakami. After the death of Sivakami. Subramania Vaithiyar married the third defendant as his second wife and fourth defendant is their daughter. Out of compulsion by his father, the plaintiff married the first defendantwho is the sister's daughter of his father. The first defendant was leading a wayward life. She did not mend herself in spite of advice given by the plaintiff, Subramania Vaithiyar and his sister. The second defendant who is the son of the first defendant was not born to the plaintiff and the plaintiff disputes his legitimacy. The plaintiff left Mayavaram wher...
Annakodi Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)364; 1995CriLJ3387
ORDER1. This revision, arising against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, is for the offences under Ss. 363 and 375, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years respectively. The prosecutrix P.W. 3 is said to have been aged only 13 years at the time of the occurrence and the revision petitioner, who is alleged to have taken prosecutrix to different places after kidnapping her, was arrested after 10 days along with the victim. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the prosecutrix P.W. 3, residents of Pappanaickenpatti Village in Madurai District. On 8-5-87 when P.W. 1 had been to his land for watering and P.W. 2 his wife also had been to a temple to attend a festival and P.W. 3, the victim girl alone was in the house with one Vooral, a servant maid. On that day early morning at 05-00 a.m., when P.W. 3 was sweeping in front of her house, this revision petitioner accused, who is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »