Chennai Court October 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.
Sali Babu and 7 ors. Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC536
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioners are seeking for grant of bail. They are arrayed as accused persons for offences punishable Under Sections 143,147,148,149,323,326,307 and 120-B of I.P.C. On the oral complaint of Sri J.M.Kalyanam, father of Sri K.M. Vijayan, a complaint was registered on 21.7.1994 by R.2 Kodambakkam Police Station, Madras. The investigation of the case was handed over to C.B.C.I.D. of Tamil Nadu State on 7.8.1994 as per Government orders. From 8.8.1994 to 18.8.1994, the case was investigated by C.B.C.I.D., Madras. On 18.8.1994, the Supreme Court ordered that C.B.I. to take up investigation from the Tamil Nadu Police and the C.B.I took up the investigation on 8.9.1994. The C.B.I. examined several persons by name Gurumurthy, Jagadish and Pasupathy and verified the source of information and collected materials that prior to asault on Sri K.M. Vijayan, a conspiracy had been there to organise such assault. It is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of one Adhi...
Adhi Rajaram Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC483
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for offences Under Sections 147, 148 and 307 I.P.C.2. The facts in brief are, that Sri K.M. Vijayan, a practising Advocate of Madras was attacked by unknown assailants inflicting grievous injuries on him while he was about to leave his house to New Delhi on 21.7.1994 at 4.30 hrs. with a view to kill him and to stop him from attending the Supreme Court on 22.7.1994 for a case against the 69% reservation policy of the Tamil Nadu state Government. A case in Cr.No. 1929/94 was regstered by R2 Kodambakkam Police station. While the investigation was in progress, four persons surrendered before XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, on 25.7.1994 confessing themselves as the persons who assaulted Sri K.M. Vijayan. The investigation was handed over to CBCID of the Tamil Nadu State on 7.8.1994. From 8.8.1994 to 18.8.1994, CBCID investigated the case. On 18.8.1994, the Apex Court in an interl...
K. Arunachalam and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ63
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13786 of 1995 was allotted half share in Survey No. 138/2A of an extent of 1.65 acres in Komarapalayam Amani Village, Tiruchcngode Taluk, in a family agreement. Challenging the proposal to acquire his land under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, he filed W.P. No. 9487 of 1981 on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the authorities from in any manner depriving him of his land under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13787 of 1995 is the owner of an undivided half share in Survey No. 138/3 of Komarapalayam Amani Village, Tiruchengodu Taluk, of an extent of 1.55 acres. When his lands were sought to be acquired under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, he filed W.P. No. 9486 of 1981 before this Court for a similar relief as in the other writ petition.3. The petitioners in W.P. No. 13830 of 1995 are the joint owners of the land in Survey No...
Nachal and anr. Vs. C. Arjunan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC650; (1996)IMLJ338
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The suit was filed by one Peria Karuppan Ambalam for declaration of his right in the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the properties. According to him, the defendants arc trespassers and have no right whatever in the suit properties. Pending the suit, the said Periakaruppan died and his daughter and wife came on record as his legal representatives. After the legal representatives came on record, the prayer in the plaint reads that their right in the suit properties should be declared and the defendants should be restrained by an injunction from interfering with their enjoyment of the properties.2. The trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and held that the defendants were not having any interest whatever in the suit properties. Consequently, the trial court passed decree declaring the rights of the plaintiffs and granting an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering ...
V. Ramaswamy Pillai Vs. the State of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC579
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The land-owner before the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Karaikal in M.R.No. 1 of 1970, is the appellant before this Court.2. The appellant was directed to file returns of the property held by him under the relevant provisions of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973. Returns were filed wherein he said that himself, his minor sons who were given in adoption, his daughter and wife are together holding nearly 4-89-61 standard hectares, and hence they are not liable to surrender any excess land.3. Negativing his contention, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant is having a surplus land of 10-88- 73 std. hectares. Against the said Order of the Authorised Officer, the landowner preferred an Appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal confirmed the decision of the authorised Officer. Second Appeal was taken before this Court, wherein additional evidence was also sought to be adduced. Taking into co...
P.R. Ponnusami Vs. Gnanaprakasam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ211
Srinivasan, J.1. Two questions are raised by learned Counsel for the appellant, whose claim for the benefits under Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act has been negatived concurrently by the Courts below : (1) The prayer in the plaint is for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant and for recovery of the vacant site after removal of superstructure. According to learned Counsel once the prayer for recovery of vacant site after removal of superstructure is made, it follows automatically that the appellant is entitled to the benefits under Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the courts below are right in negativing the same. There is no merit in this contention. In the very same paragraph 14 in the plaint, it is categorically stated that the first defendant who is the appellant herein, is deemed to be a trespasser as per the law as he denied the title of the landlord in all respects and he cannot get any benefit under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protectio...
M.P.P. Jayagandhi Nadar and Company by Partner, M.P.P. Jayagandhi Nada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ251
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 435 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvannamalai.2. A decree was passed against the second respondent herein on 8.8.1979. Execution petition was filed on 3.12.1980. The property, which is the subject-matter of the suit, was attached on 22.12.1980. At that time, the present Execution Application No. 621 of 1981 was filed by the first respondent herein that the property is not liable to be attached, he having purchased the same as per sale deed dated 15.3.1961. According to him, the second respondent, who is none other than his own son, has no right over the property purchased by him on 15.3.1961, the same being his self-acquisition. He also contended that he purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 4,000 and that he is in enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. Ex. A-1 is the sale deed. Ex. A-2 is the house-tax demand notice. Exs. A-3 and A-4 are house-tax receipts. Ex. A-5 is the electric...
R. Venkatachalapathy and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ652
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Admit. Since the matter is directly covered by the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal : AIR1995SC2114 , the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for-final hearing by consent of both parties. Heard Mr.S.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Sengottuvelan, learned Government Advocate.2. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the award made in Proceedings No. 2/95-96, dated 28.7.1995 onthe file of the second respondent and to quash the same.3. Writ Petition No. 13771 of 1995 has been filed to quash the G.O. (3D) No. 343 (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare), dated 19.5.1992 and Writ Petition No. 13772 of 1995 has been filed to quash the G.O. (3D) No. 343, (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare), dated 19.5.1992, notifications issued under Section 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in Part II, Section 2 (Supplement) of th...
Gandhi IrwIn Salt Manufacturers Association and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad109
ORDER1. Since all these writ petitions are filed challenging the Notification No. VI/ (2)/206/94 dated 29-8-1994 issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine-cum-State Food (Health) Authority, more or less on similar facts and pleadings, and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents also are similar, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the questions that arise for consideration are substantially similar.2. Briefly stated the facts as pleaded by the petitioners leading to the writ petitions are the following:--The petitioner in W.P. No. 20443/94 is a registered society and the writ petition is filed by the said society represented by its Secretary giving the list of its members numbering 207. W.P. No. 21283 of 1994, federation is a registered society represented by its President having a total membership of 553 small scale manufacturers of ordinary common edible salt. Writ Petition No. 21485 of 1994 is filed by P. V. Rajendran, M.L...
Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal College, Tirupattur Vs. the Registrar Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad309; (1996)IMLJ17
ORDER1. This writ petition is by the petitioner college seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings relating to the order passed in No. CDC/CF/94 dated 21-12-1994 and also to quash the consequential order dated 1-3-1995 on the file of the respondent appointing a Commission and directing enquiry as against the petitioner college.2. The case of the petitioner, as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is as follows:--The petitioner college is a private aided institution which is recognised and affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai. The said college was started in the 1965, and is a reputed institution situate in a rural area, doing yeoman service to the Public of Tirupathur and its surrounding areas. It is producing number of rank holders every year and is maintaining good discipline among the students in all respects. The results of the University examinations of the institution were between 75% to 100% in most of the courses.3. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »