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.
Padmavathi Ammal Vs. Gopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ622
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 1197 of 1985 on the file of the Appellate Authority (VII 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 sin...
Sp. Arumugam Alias Chinnadurai Chettiar and anr. Vs. Sp. Muthuraman Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ457
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Petitioners were plaintiffs while respondents were defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 14 in the suit.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 102 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai for declaration that they are the owners of the bus TNY.352 and are entitled to 1/8th share of the buses TNP.171 and TNX.7867, in the joint family business in transport, with 7/8th share in defendants 1 to 11 and consequently, for an injunction restraining the 12th defendant and his men from in any way disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of those buses by the joint family members, either by surrendering the permit to the Regional Transport Officer or by selling them. The basis of their claim rclatable to the buses bearing registration numbers TNY. 352 and TNP. 171 was that they were purchased benami in the name of the 12th defendant for the joint family business.3. It seems on the written statements filed by the contesting defendants, necessa...
P. Damodaran Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Cements and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ601
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is employed in the Tamil Nadu Cements, a Government of Tamil Nadu under taking has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiroari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent herein relating to orders in proceedings R.C. No. 11575/A-1/84 dated 22.8.1984, under which, he has confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent herein and confirmed the imposition of the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect.2. For the reason that I have found a serious infirmity in the appellate order, I do not propose in the instant case to narrate the facts leading to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the service of memorandum of charges upon him, enquiry and the imposition of penalty by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner, however preferred before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent has disposed of, the ap...
Amaravathy Vs. Binny Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC42; 1996ACJ785
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, dated 15.10.1980 in W.C. Case No. 51 of 1980 filed under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. According to the petitioner, her son Munusamy was a workman employed as a welder by the opposite party on a monthly wage of Rs. 300/- and that on 11.1.1979, while he was discharging his duty as a welder doing electrical welding in a ship in the Madras Harbour, he slipped on account of an electric shock, fell in deep water and drowned. The petitioner has filed the application for lump sum compensation of Rs. 19,000/- as a dependant of the deceased.3. Opposite party has filed a counter stating that the workman Munusamy was a casual worker from 11.1.1979 and he was required to work standing on the plank suspended about 3 feet above the water level and was provided with all safety equipment. The opposite party has also stated that the workman was covered under t...
Nadar Mahajana Sangam S. Vellaichamy Nadar College Vs. District Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ76
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Though the writ miscellaneous petitions relating to these three writ petitions, which are connected have alone been posted today for disposal, by consent of all parties, I heard all the counsel on the main writ petitions themselves and accordingly I am disposing of the main writ petitions.2. No doubt, disposal of these main writ petitions will not automatically dispose of one writ miscellaneous petition posted in the list, that is W.M.P. No. 15625 of 1994 in W.P. No. 9432 of 1994 since the said W.M.P. seeks punishment for perjury said to have been committed by the 1st respondent in the said writ petition. Hence the said W.M.P. will have to be posted separately later.3. All these writ petitions are by Nadar Mahajana Sangam S.Vellaichamy Nadar College, at Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai. The said Sangam is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Society is represented by its Secretary S....
P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. R. Sivakami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ218
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed on 7.1.1993 on a memo in R.C.O.P. No. 182 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore.2. Short facts are: The respondent had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of requirement of the building for the use of her son Nandakumar, who is said to be partner in Mahalakshmi Auto Parts. During the pendency of the petition, the revision petitioner had filed an interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permitting him to examine the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, N.H. Road Circle, Coimbatore and for a direction for production of documents by him. Evidently, after receipt of summons, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer appeared in Court and filed a memo objecting to the production of documents taking shelter under Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales...
Alamelu Ammal and ors. Vs. K. Gopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ478
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is against an order dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 3459 days in filing an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. Petitioners were set ex parte in O.S. No. 3286 of 1981 and an ex parte decree was passed on 12.1.1982 in the said suit. Petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex pane decree and by orders dated 22.12.1992, the decree was set aside and that was after the condition imposed by the court of payment of costs of Rs. 100 was satisfied by the petitioners.2 Petitioners filed I.A. No. 625 of 1993 on 18.1.1993 for condonation of delay of 3459 days in filing an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The court below has held that the delay is not properly explained and the petitioner are not entitled to have the delay condoned. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that there was no question of delay as the application had been filed within thirty days from t...
K.L. Karibeeran and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad292
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued under Art. 342(1) of the Constitution of India declared that 'Kurumans' throughout the State of Tamil Nadu except Kanya Kumari District and Shencottah taluk of Tirunelveli district and 'Kurumbas' in Nilgiris Districtshall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes. There was no change in the position when the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Modification Order, 1956 was issued. The Parliament passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled , Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. Part XIV of the Second Schedule related to Tamil Nadu. Serial No. 17 mentioned 'Kurumbas (in the Nilgiris district)' while Serial No. 18 mentioned 'Kurumans'. There was no exclusion of Kanyakumari District and Shencottach Taluk of Tirunelveii District. Thus, 'Kurumans' throughout the State of Tamil Nadu and 'Kurumbas' in the Nilgiris District were declared Scheduled Tribes by the said enactment.2. Several representations were made by the Kurumans Welfa...
Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC201; [1995]83CompCas146(Mad)
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is to be tried. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : The defendant is a common carrier. As per invoice No. 80-81/2624, dated September 15, 1980, issued by The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Limited, Nagda, the first plaintiff purchased from them goods worth Rs. 1,29,655. The goods were entrusted with the defendant at Nagda under lorry receipt No. 702680 dated September 15, 1980, for transport to the first plaintiff at Coimbatore. The goods arrived at Coimbatore and the defendant offered to deliver the same to the first plaintiff on September 30, 1980. The outer condition of all the bales entrusted for transport were found wet and, therefore, open delivery was taken. The defendant gave a damage certificate on November 15, 1980, in token of having delivered the suit consignment i...
M. Muthupalani Vs. M.D. Kanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ467
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This L.P.A. is preferred against the order dated 23rd December, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in C.R.P. SR. No. 68468 of 1993 rejecting the civil revision petition on the ground that it is not maintainable, as it does not comply with the requirement of Rule 21, Order 4 of the Rules of the High Court of Madras in the Appellate Side. Along with the civil revision petition, the petitioner has produced a certified copy, of the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, rejecting the application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejecting the plaint. Learned District Munsif has rejected the application. However, learned single Judge has taken a view that according to Rule 21, Order 4 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Madras, certified copies of the fair order and decretal order are to be produced. Of course, Rule 21, Order 4 of the Appellate Side Rules does not pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »