Chennai Court January 1995 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.
Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by Its Member Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC229
ORDER OF THE COURT (PER MAJORITY):Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Colle...
Silver Granites Vs. Murugan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad217; 1995(2)CTC1; (1995)IIMLJ361
ORDER1. The revision petition is filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 1368 of 1994 against an order of injunction passed by the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in I.A. No. 727 of 1994. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the suit O.S. No. 1368 of 1994 for a declaration that the permission granted to the petitioner herein in Rec. No. 1304/93 dated 1-11-1993 by the Government is null, void and unenforceable and for an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from in any manner quarrying or transporting the quarried stones from the suit property. They filed I.A. No. 727 of 1994 for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. That application was called in Court on 23-12-1994 and the Third Additional Subordinate Judge recorded his reasons for granting an interim order of injunction. However, he overlooked the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure and posted the matter for notice and return to 2-2-1995 and granted interim injunction till t...
N. Doraisamy and Others Vs. Archana Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas129(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. In all these actions, I rather feel, there is no need or necessity to advert to the facts of each case, inasmuch as, what is challenged is the alleged commission of offence by certain companies, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881 as subsequently amended for short 'the NI Act'), for dishonour of cheques on account of either of the two contingencies or eventualities, as contemplated therein, viz., 'insufficiency of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of the person', or 'it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from the account of a person by an agreement with that bank' for which, prosecution had been launched by preferring individual complaints before competent courts of jurisdiction purely on questions of law relatable to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by raising the following grounds : (1) The offence was committed by the company and not by the petitio...
D. Ramamoorthi Vs. K.J. Duraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)152; [1998]93CompCas538(Mad); 1995(1)CTC282
Janarthanam, J. 1. The petitioner in this action is the accused in C.C. No. 381 of 1993, before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, which had been taken on file on the launching of a prosecution in the shape of preference of a complaint by the respondent, for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (a) It appears that the petitioner/accused issued a cheque dated August 20, 1992, for a specified sum of money towards discharge of a debt to the respondent/complainant. When the cheque so issued had been presented for encashment on August 21, 1992, the same had been returned unpaid on the same date, for want of funds. Again the said cheque appears to have been represented on October 19, 1992, for encashment and on the same day, the cheque had been returned unpaid for want of funds. (b) Consequently, the respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice on October 24, 1992, to the petitione...
N. Doraisamy and Another Etc. Vs. M/S. Archana Enterprises and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2306
ORDER1. In all these actions, I rather feel, there is no need or necessity to advert to the facts of each case, in as much as, what is challenged is the alleged commission of offence by certain Companies, under Section 138 of the Nagotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. XXVI of 1881 as subsequently amended for short 'NI Act') for dishonour of cheques on account of either of the two contingencies or eventualities, as contemplated therein, viz., insufficiency of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of the person, or it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from the account of a person by an agreement with that Bank for which, prosecution had been launched by preferring individual complaints before competent Courts' of jurisdiction purely on questions of law relatable to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the NI Act, by raising the following grounds :- (1) The offence was committed by the Company and not by the petitioner; (2) The prosecution of the ...
Management of Sri Ivan Stedeford Hospital, Madras Vs. V.S. Alan Raj an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1206Mad; (1995)IIMLJ18
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. At the stage of admission the 1st respondent, who is the contesting respondent, has entered appearance. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, the same is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. No. 20604 of 1994 filed in W.P. No. 370 of 1990. The said W.P. No. 20604 of 1994 was filed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, from transferring the 1st respondent herein from Ambattur, Madras to a place Kadayalamoodu, Kanyakumari District, pending disposal of the writ petition. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 370 of 1990 relates to the validity of quantum of back wages awarded by the Labour Court in an award passed by it for reinstatement of the 1st respondent and also for payment of back wages. The appellant has not challenged the...
Moon Rock and Marble Company Represented by Its Partner M.K.S. Manian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ572
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on quarrying in the demised quarry measuring 30-63 acres in S. No. 446, Alapuram village, Harur Taluk in Dharmapuri District and removing the quarried stones outside till the lease period expires on 2.2.1987.2. On the face of it, the prayer has worked itself out in 1987 and nothing survives in the writ petition. Hence, it has become infructuous.3. However, the petitioner has come forward with a miscellaneous petition (W.M.P. No. 18671 of 1994) for amending the prayer in the writ petition in the following terms:To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to commence and execute the quarrying works subject to the terms and conditions of the lease granted and agreement executed from the date of agreement to a period of 6 years and 6 months and 13 days, which period the petitioner wa...
Kemi Kwaja Mohideen Vs. Susan Galife
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ20
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner. This civil revision petition is admitted. Mr. R. Subramanian appears for the respondent. Heard both the counsel at length. By consent of both, this civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The above civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry in E.A. No. 70 of 1993 in E.P. No. 44 of 1992 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1988. The petitioner is the landlord. The learned Principal District Munsif allowed E.A. No. 70 of 1993 which was filed under Sections 47, 94(e) and 151, C.P.C., seeking to determine and adjudicate that the decree and the order under execution is a nullity and incapable of execution and consequently to dismiss the E.P. and for other reliefs. The petitions was presented on 15.7:1993 before the said court. The respondent is a tenant. Before the learned District Munsif, the respondent herein challenged the decree under execution on the grou...
The Management of Sri Ivan Stedeford Hospital Vs. S. Alan Raj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ18
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission the 1st respondent, who is the contesting respondent, has entered appearance. As the appeal lies in a narrow campass, the same is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. No. 20604 of 1994 filed in W.P. No. 370 of 1990. The said W.M.P. No. 20604 of 1994 was filed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, from transferring the 1st respondent herein from Ambattur, Madras to a place Kadayalamoodu, Kanyakumari District, pending disposal of the writ petition.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 370 of 1990 relates to the validity of quantum of back wages awarded by the Labour Court in an award passed by it for reinstatement of the 1st respondent and also for payment of back wages. The appellant has not challenged the ...
A.D. Thiru (Huf) Vs. Appropriate Authority and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC316; [1995]215ITR914(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. By consent this matter has been taken up for final hearing and learned counsel for the parties heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent passed on November 29, 1994, on the statement in Form No. 37-I filed by the petitioner on August 31, 1994, for the transfer of the property located at 33, Rudra Road, St. Thomas Mount, Madras. By that order the authority did not decide to acquire the property. Nor did it issue a no objection certificate for the transfer of the property to respondent No. 2. The authority's decision was merely to lodge the statement : 3. The reason given for this unusual order is that, according to the authority, the land sought to be transferred was in excess of the ceiling limit laid down in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. 4. This order is wholly unsustainable. The authority's powers and jurisdiction are limited to safeguarding the interests of the Revenue in accordance with the provi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »