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.
St. Adaikalamatha Trust Represented by Its Manager and Mother Superior ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ608
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 26 ofl983isapublictrustanditisplaintiffi No. S. No. 367 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur. The respondents in the second appeal are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. The petitioner in W.P. No. 274 of 1983 is the second defendant in O.S. No. 367 of 1980 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 544 of 1983 is the third defendant in the said suit. The first respondent in both the writ petitions is the plaintiff No. S. No. 367 of 1980. As the subject matter and the parties to the second appeal and the writ petitions are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the judgment in Second Appeal No. 26 of 1983 as per their array in O.S. No. 367 of 1980.2. The suit O.S. No. 367 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff-trust for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, namel...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Secretary Defence Department and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ630
1. The second respondent in this appeal, viz., State of Tamil Nadu and the appellants are respondents 1 to 4 respectively in the writ petition. The first respondent was granted permission by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1765, dated 22.12.1992 to erect hoardings in certain locations mentioned in that Government Order which are situated on the National Highway 45, subject to the usual terms and conditions. There is nothing on record before us to show what are the usual terms and conditions. However all counsel appearing in this appeal agree that usually the period is one year.2. One such location is at km 12/720 which is in dispute in the present case. On the strength of the permission granted by the State Government, the first respondent erected a hoarding in the said location. According to the first respondent, he spent a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for erecting the said hoarding. The appellants (respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition), according to the first respondent herein, removed t...
M. Sampathraj Bothra Vs. Thiruvengadam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ477
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed E.A. No. 278 in E.P. No. 2090 of 1985 in O.S. No. 9388 of 1976 on the file of X Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Short facts are : The respondent has obtained a money dcree against S.R. Jain in O.S. No. 9388 of 1976. To realise the decree debt, he levied execution in E.P. No. 2090 of 1985 praying for arrest. The respondent filed E.A. No. 278 of 1987 praying for an order to amend column No. 11 in the Execution Petition by adding alias Sampathraj Bothra after S.R. Jain. Without ordering notice to the judgment-debtor, the court below had allowed the petition. Aggrieved by that order, M. Sampathraj Bothra has filed this revision petition.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that S.R. Jain and Sampathraj Bothra are totally different persons and without even ordering notice to S.R. Jain in Execution Application, this amendment with regard to the name of the judgment-de...
Tvl. Cholan Roadways, Corporation Ltd. Kumbakonam and Etc. Etc. Vs. Tv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad129a
ORDER1. All the above Writ Petitions raise a common question for consideration. By consent of both parties, all of them were heard together. The Writ Petitions were filed as against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing the appeals filed by the respective petitioner/ Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) as against the order of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) granting variations in favour of the 1st respondent in each of the writ petitions plying on the respective inter-State route.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-- The 1st respondent in each of the writ petitions are private operators in the Union Territory of Pondicherry having primary permits granted by the Authority. They made applications for variation under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The same were notified inviting representations from the sector...
S. Arumugam Vs. the Commissioner of Police Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ194
Arunachalam, J.1. Petitioner Arumugam has been detained as a 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 9-7-1993 passed by the first respondent. Commissioner of Police, Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The main ground urged by petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority had not recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner was a 'goonda' and .... used the said word as a title prefixing it before the word 'Thiru' and on that sole ground the impugned order has to be voided. In support of this contention, petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court rendered in H.C.P. No. 34, of 1994 - 'order dated 27-6-1994. 3. The Division Bench stated as follows :- 'The detention order does not indicate any application of mind to the fact whether he was a Goonda, nor does it record any finding of the detaining authority in that...
M. Shamsundar Vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC471
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The above miscellaneous petitions arise out of the writ petition No. 5776 of 1994 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a circular dated 24.3.1994 issued by the second respondent restructuring, marketing and distribution group in the first respondent company. A few facts are necessary before dealing with the miscellaneous petitions.2. The first respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with the following share holding pattern :-Government of India - 67.55%The National Iranian Oil Company, Tagran, Iran 32.45%.The company is carrying on business in the manufacture and marketing of phopetic fertiliser and ure. The petitioner was acting as the Deputy General Manager, Market Development Department of the company. On or about 31-12-1992 the second respondent was promoted as General Manager of the marketing and distribution group. According to the petitioner he was better qualified for the said post of General Manager and therefore, he filed W.P.No....
Dr. V. Gnanasikhamani and anr. Vs. John T. Timms and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC26
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. This appeals have been filed against the orders setting aside the injunction granted by the learned single Judge on 6-8-1993 in C.S.No. 949/93 restraining the defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with the work of the plaintiffs as trustees of the trust in question. It appears that the defendants 1 and 2 had filed a caveat in the court anticipating that some stay of injunction order may be passed by the court against them. Because of the caveat, the caveators/defendants were served with a copy of plaint and documents and intimated the date of hearing. They appeared before the learned single Judge and prayed for time to file counter to the injunction application. On 6-8-1993 when the matter came up for consideration of the court, the defendants 1,2 and 3 even though they had earlier appeared and asked for time to file their counter did not appear. The court felt that there was an urgent necessity of an injunction in the matter and therefore passed an order injunct...
S. Mahahooh Sheriff (Died) and ors. Vs. Abdul Khudoos (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ120
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 26 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore (Appellate Authority), in which the appellate authority had confirmed the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 89 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore (Rent Controller).2. Short facts are:The first respondent has filed a petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for wilful default in payment of rent. It is the case of the respondents that there was a written lease agreement between the parties dated 1.12.1975. As per the deed, the tenant has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 150 and that the tenancy is according to English calendar month. The tenant was highly irregular in payment of rent and the total outstanding amount towards arrears of rent is Rs. 3,175. The default is wilful. Hence, the petition.3. The first revision petitioner/tenant resist...
R. Rajendran, Secretary, C.W.P.R.Pc Vs. the District Collector and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ474
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The writ petitioner Rajendran, Secretary of the Consumers Welfare and Public Rights Protection Council, Poondurai, Periy&r; District, has initiated this proceeding as a public interest litigation.2. The writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 6.6.1994 of the 2nd respondent, the Additional Collector (Developments), Erode, and to direct the respondents, that is, the 1st respondent, the District Collector and 3rd respondent, the Special Officer of Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat and the abovesaid 2nd respondent, to construct the permanent office building for Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat at Goundachipalayam village.3. According to the affidavit in support of the writ petition, persons belonging to the abovesaid Thuyyampoondurai Panchayat made representations to the petitioner's Association regarding in connection with the abovesaid proposed construction. According to the affidavit, the said persons were aggrieved by the attempt made by the respondents to shift the above...
Chandra and ors. Vs. Loganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC516; 1996ACJ670
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased Ajeet Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 28.9.1993 at about 5.45 p.m. at General Patters Road, Madras, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Additional Claims Tribunal, Madras.2. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of Ajeet Singh. The averments in the said claim petition were that on 28.9.1993 at about 5.45 p.m. at General Patters Road, Madras, while the deceased Ajeet Singh was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. TMM 5148 from south-east to north-west, a lorry bearing registration No. TNJ 1357, owned by respondent No. 1, Loganathan and driven by one Krishnan rashly and negligently at a high speed in the same direction dashed against the deceased from the rear side and caused fatal injuries. They further contended that since the accident was due to the ras...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »