Chennai Court November 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.
T. Mayerulan Nadar Vs. K. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC674; (1996)IMLJ494
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2976 of 1977 on the file of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the said suit against the respondent herein for possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Though the trial Court decreed the suit in the first appeal filed by the respondent, viz., A.S. No. 134 of 19823 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the suit has been dismissed. While the first appeal was pending, the respondent also filed C.M.P. No. 5 of 1982 Under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for purchasing the suit land on the ground that pursuant to 'the amending Act' (which was not specified) she became entitled to the protection under the Act. However, since there was delay of 770 days in filing the said C.M.P. No. 5 of 1982, she also filed C.M.P. No. 550 of 1982 for condoning the said...
Chinnangi Konar Vs. Paramasivam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC176
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This Revision has been preferred against the order rejecting the plaint by the Lower Court. The plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note. In the promissory note out of five stamps three stamps were removed. The suit was filed only against two of the persons who executed the promissory note out of five persons. The Lower Court rejected the plaint stating that the promissory note is defective, after taking into consideration the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 1A C.P.C. It is against that order the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, who submitted that the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the promissory note is defective. However, the attention of this Court was drawn to a decision of this Court rendered in the case of R. Shanmughavelu Pillai v. Karuppanna Amhalam (1975) 88 L.W. 740, wherein it is clearly held that against an order rejecting the plaint only an appeal will lie...
Vijayaraj JaIn and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas757(Mad); 1995(52)ECC18
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 9380 of 1994 is filed by Bhabootimal Jain and his household servant Vagharam Choudhary. The said writ petition was filed on May 16, 1994, on the following allegations. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners are law abiding citizens, and the first petitioner has retired from active business activities since the past three years. The first petitioner has stated in the affidavit that his three sons are engaged in stainless steel business, dealing only in indigenous goods. It is said that the first petitioner's eldest son, Vijayaraj, is the proprietor of a firm 'Vijaya Steel Center' at No. 11/C-1, Ekambareshwarar Agraharam, Madras-3. According to the first petitioners, after visiting a nearby Jain temple in the morning, he generally used to sit in the shop for some time, for the past more than three years. Petitioner No. 1 states in his affidavit that the petitioners have been constrained to take excep...
T.N. Civil Courts Sr. Bailiffs Asson. Rep. by Its President, N.K. Nata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)IMLJ12
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Senior Bailiffs Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association) is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. 2. The prayer in W. P. No. 6641 of 1991 is as follows : To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent issued in G. O. Ms. No. 666, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.6.1989 and quash Entry No. 53 in Column No. 3 pertaining to Senior Bailiffs at page 135, shown as Rs. 825-1200 and direct the respondents to revise and fix the pay of the Senior Bailiffs in the scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-30-1660 on par with the scale of employees in similar categories. 3. The prayer in W. P. No. 1187 of 1992 is as follows : To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in G. O. Ms. No. 666, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.6.1989 and quash Entry No. 53 in Column No. 3 pe...
The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Senior Bailiffs Association Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ12
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Senior Bailiffs Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association) is the petitioner in both the writ petitions.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 6641 of 1991 is as follows: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent issued in G.O.Ms. No. 666, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.6.1989 and quash Entry No. 53 in Column No. 3 pertaining to Senior Bailiffs at page 135, shown as Rs. 825-1200 and direct the respondents to revise and fix the pay of the Senior Bailiffs in the scale of Rs. 975-25-1150-30-1660 on par with the scale of pay of employees in similar categories.3. The prayer in W.P. No. 1187 of 1992 is as follows: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.6.1989 and quash Entry No. 53 in Column No. 3 pertaini...
The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs. D..P. Venkataraman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ198
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The seventh defendant bank in O.S. No. 1510 of 1984 on the file of VII Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has filed this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S. No. 62 of 1993 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, whereby the suit, of the first respondent/plaintiff who is an employee of the appellant/7th defendant, for a declaration that his date of birth is 30.1.1937 was decreed as prayed for. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the Director of Public Instruction. The third defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu. The fourth defendant is the Director of School Education. The fifth defendant is the Director of Collegiate Education. The sixth defendant is the Registrar, University of Madras and the seventh defendant is the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Madras. All the defendants excepting the seventh defendant are respondents in the second appeal.2. Even at the outset, it must be noted that...
international Air Cargo Workers Union Vs. International Airport Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1192Mad; (1996)IMLJ190
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 30-8-1995 passed by the learned single Judge on W.M.P. No. 18040 of 1995 filed in W.P. No. 2126 of 1995. 2. In the aforesaid writ petition the International Airport Authority of India, has challenged the validity of the Award dated 23-12-1994 passed in I.D. No. 65 of 1991 by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The issue referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was : 'Whether the action of the Management of International Airport Authority of India, Madras is justified in not absorbing the workers/members of Airport International Co-operative Service Society, their contractor. If not to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to?' After trial Tribunal, on 20-12-1994 has passed the award in the following terms : 'In the result, an award is passed directing the first respondent to absorb the members of the petitioner-union workers stated in the annexure, except the members who expired and members who left the servic...
A. Balasubramania Pillai Vs. the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ224Mad; (1996)IMLJ59
A.C. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1 st respondent in his Proceedings No. 4068/EA 3/88 dated February 19, 1991 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No. 6840/EA 3/92 dated March 29, 1993. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner while functioning as Superintendent RMD, Ambattur of SIDCO alleged to have committed certain irregularities. As a result a charge memo dated September 19, 1983 was issued to him calling upon him to explain the various lapses and misconduct. The petitioner furnished his reply on November 24, 1983, which was received by SIDCO on November 29, 1983. Since the relevant papers and file could not be traced. SIDCO requested the petitioner to furnish true copies of the charge memo dated September 19, 1983 and his reply dated November 24, 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave copies of the same. On the basis of these copies, SIDCO letoff the ...
Guruswami Gounder Vs. Kesave Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC155
ORDERRaju, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant in the above second appeal. First respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 510 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the second respondent in this appeal and the first respondent - plaintiff on 23.10.1978 for the sale of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that the second respondent herein has agreed to sell the property in question on 23.10.1978 to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 18,100/- that various amounts were paid on the dates set out in detail in the plaint, that a balance of Rs. 8,100/- was due towards the sale consideration, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, that though for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- that was paid on 29.4.1979, there was no endorsement on the agreement, that even if the court comes to the conclusion that there is no proof for payment of the said sum of Rs...
N. Krishna Chettiar Alias Krishnaswami and ors. Vs. C. Subbiah Ambalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ213
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. C.R.P. No. 401 of 1995 is directed against the order dated 17.10.1984 made in E.P. No. 68 of 1983 in O.S. No. 100 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai.C.R.P. No. 402 of 1995 is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 159 of 1982 in O.S. No. 101 of 1951 on the file of District Munsif Devakottai.2. The petitioners in the court below are eight Karai Vallambara Community of Ariyakadi, Idayur and Vettiyur villages on whose behalf O.S. Nos. 100 and 101 of 1951 were filed in a representative capacity.3. O.S. No. 100 of 1951 was filed by one (1) S. Andiappan and (2) S.P. Palaniappan as representatives of Eight Karai Vallambars of Ariyakudi, Idayoor and Vettiryur village under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. against some leading Udayars and Ariyakudi Sri Thiruvengadamudayan Devasthanam. The suit O.S. No. 100 of 1951 was for recovery of possession of four items of properties, viz:(1) 3 acres 70 cents being a portion of T.S. No. 507;(2) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »