Chennai Court September 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.
L.Vinayagam and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ509
ORDERMishra, J.1. Petitioners herein have challenged a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the consequent declaration under Section 6 thereof on the ground that as declared, the public purpose is the creation of a new neighbourhood scheme known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Schemes, which is vague and thus never provided to the petitioner adequate opportunity to object to the acquisition. The notification states,Whereas it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the lands specified below are needed for a purpose, to wit for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Part II Schemes, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) and the Governor of Tamilnadu hereby authorises the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) State H...
V. Sathiyanathan Vs. Director of Approved Section and Vigilance Servic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ215
S.M. Ali Mohammed, J.1. By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner herein was employed as a peon in the establishment of the second respondent Juvenile Guidance Bureau, Egmore, Madras-600008. He retired from service on 30.6.1994. After his retirement the petitioner applied to the second respondent on 25.2.1994 for the appointment of his son to the peon's post, on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that no orders have been passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondents herein to consider the representation dated 25.2.1994 to the second respondent for selection of his son for the post of peon in the second respondent's Office -Juvenile Guidance Bureau, Madras. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated as fo...
Nagaswami Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1658
ORDER1. An autorickshaw bearing registration number TN-01-D-4017 in the process of being utilised for transport of illicit arrack was stated to have been seized by the Inspector of Police, Kavangarai Police Station, Kavangarai, Chengalpettu MGR District (respondent) on 7-6-1994 and that apart, one Nageswari (petitioner), claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle and three others were bodily present in the said vehicle. All the four were stated to have been taken into custody besides seizing the illicit arrack. A case in Crime No. 496/94 had been registered for an alleged offence under S. 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937 as subsequently amended for short 'the Act') against all those four persons. 2. The seizure of the auto was stated to have been reported to the Court and the custody of the same had been entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvotriyur, who, in turn, for the purpose of safe custody, entrusted the said vehicle to...
E. Ramaswami Vs. Xii Assistant Judge, City Civil Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ38
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant in limine by a single Judge of this Court. The prayers in the writ petition were as follows:to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a certiroarified mandamus calling for records: (i) from respondent No. 1 relating to E.P. No. 2840 of 1984 quash the cryptic order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Xth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in E.A. No. 2288 of 1992 in E.A. No. 4663 of 1985, (ii) from respondent No. 2 relating to show cause notice W.D.C. No. D2/PPA/2377/92, dated 8.3.1994 and quash the same and direct respondent No. 2 to sanction the building plan PPA/D2/2377/1992, dated 30.3.1992; and (iii) direct respondent No. 2 herein to make suitable corrections in the site assignment deed in accordance with the order dated 31.3.1969 passed in A.R.C. No. 147/68-769 by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar and pass any further or other order or orders including o...
Nithya Vs. University of Madras, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad164
ORDER1. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner herein is a student oflhe Ethiraj College for Women, Madras for B.A. Corporate Secretaryship (Evening Class) Three Years Course from 1991-92 to 1993-94. For the final academic year, that is, 1993-94, she has completed 55.75% of attendance. However, due to the fact that she was married on 18-10-1993 and shortly thereafter, she was conceived and as such she was suffering from morning sickness and was indisposed due to nausea throughout the day, she was not able to attend the college regularly. In the mean-time, as the final, year examination of three years course commenced on 8-4-1994, she approached the third respondent -- the Principal, Ethiraj College for Women on 6-4-1994 to write the examinations. But, she was informed that her hall ticket was withheld. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari-fied mandamus to call for the rec...
Yagammal Vs. M.D. John
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ206
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 57 of 1989 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Ponneri. The landlord filed that application under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and denial of title. The petitioner/tenant resisted the action disputing the landlord-tenant relationship between them. It appears that during enquiry after the examination of the landlord in chief and he was about to be cross-examined, the tenant came forward with an application for receiving an additional counter. After contest the court gave her the necessary permission and the counter was received. Thereafter, the landlord filed M.P. No. 84 of 1993 under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking permission to recall him for giving further evidence alleging that he was cross-examined on certain new plea taken in the additional counter and so he has to be recalle...
Abdul Sathar Vs. Palaniappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ396
Thangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is fourth defendant in O.S. No. 701 of 1994 in the Court of the District Munsif, Karur. First respondent/plaintiff instituted that suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner and others from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property. Along with the suit he filed I.A. No. 657 of 1994 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and sought for a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. The revision petitioner entered appearance through his counsel on 18.8.1994 and sought time to file his counter. On the same day notice was ordered to the other defendants/Respondents and the revision petitioner was directed to file his counter by 26.8.1994. The court also ordered both parties to maintain status quo till then. And this order is assailed by the fourth defendant in the present revision petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (r), an order under...
Ashok Choraria, and Another Vs. Inspector of Police (Crime)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3096
1. The petitioners, who are four in number, who have been arrayed as the accused in Cr. No. 305/93 before the Vanur Police Station, have filed this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings in Cr. No. 305/93.2. The allegations in the Criminal Original Petition are that the petitioners were the owners of the lands measuring in all four acres bearing different survey numbers which have been sold in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 under a sale deed dated 25-3-1992 for valid consideration of Rs. 71,500/-. The petitioners 2 and 3 entered into possession and enjoyment of the lands including the standing crops of casuarina trees. The patta for the property was transferred in their name and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. One Elumalai son of Gopal Goundar of Erayur village, who wanted to purchase the lands from the first petitioner and his daughter and could not succeed as the price offered by him was far below the pric...
K. Raman Vs. the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, P. Mettupalayam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ650
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitioner who worked as a sweeper in Town Panchayat P. Mettupalayam has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent herein and the order terminating the petitioner's services with effect from 1.3.1985.2. The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the Town Panchayat in the year 1971 and served in the said capacity doing, besides his normal duty, the duty in the pump room. He has alleged, however, that in September/ October 1985, the then Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat/ 3rd respondent P. Gurunathan and the Town Panchayat Clerk/4th respondent M.N. Arumugham turned hostile to him, for he protested to their illegally appropriating money in the name of replacement of coil of the motor in the pump room and cost of repair. A complaint, according to the petitioner, was made by someone to the Higher authorities about their conduct: they (P. Gurunathan and M.N. Arum...
N. Damodaran Naicker and anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ33
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioners are the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 2802 of 1984 on the file of IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. They instituted that action against the present respondent for recovery of possession on the ground that she has committed wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1963 till September, 1984. The tenant resisted the action contending that she had paid the rent upto May, 1984. In fact, on 25.7.1984 she had called upon the petitioners to specify the Bank wherein she could deposit the rents. However, the landlord never replied. Learned Rent Controller ordered eviction granting three months time holding that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. The present respondent took up the matter in appeal before the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 382 of 1986. The appellate authority took the view that non-payment of rent was not wilful and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »