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.
A. Balasubramania Pillai Vs. the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ59
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings No. 4068/EA/3/88, dated 19.2.1991, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. 6840/EA/3/92, dated 29.3.1993.2. 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 19.9.1983 was issued to him calling upon him to explain the various lapses and misconduct. The petitioner furnished his reply on 24.11.1983, which was received by SIDCO on 29.11.1983. Since the relevant papers and file could not be traced, SIDCO requested the petitioner to furnish true copies of the charge memo dated 19.9.1983 and his reply dated 24.11.1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave copies of the same. On the basis of these copies, SIDCO let off the petitioner merely with a severe reprimand.3...
Ammasai Gounder Vs. Lakshmiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ231
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the appellate authority - Sub-Court, Coimbatore, exercising the powers under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') confirming the order of the Rent Controller - District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 12.2.1987 in R.C.O.P. No. 71 of 1981.2. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. There is no dispute over the position that the petitioner became the tenant pursuant to the lease agreement dated 2.11.1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250 for non-residential purpose. On the ground that the lease was for the purpose of carrying on business in hotel and in disregard of the same, the petitioner-tenant is doing business by installing a lathe and obtaining three phase connection, the respondent-landlord has filed R.C.O.P. Nd.71 of 1981 under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act contending that the tenant is liable t...
Guruswami Gounder Vs. Kesava Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ461
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 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. 4,000 the plai...
T.K. Govindaraju Pillai Vs. Foreign Exchange Appellate Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT478(Mad)
Kanakraj, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board in Appeal No. 365 of 1978. In and by the said order, the Appellate Court rejected an appeal filed by the appellant herein stating that the appeal was time-barred. A few facts may be stated for understanding the correctness of the order and the scope of the arguments of learned counsel for appellants. 2. The action was initiated against the appellant under Section 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment introduced on 19-9-1973. The corresponding provisions are Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Amended Act and it is stated that the said provisions are in pari materia. The show cause notice under the unamended Act was issued on 22-1-1993 prior to the amendment. Under the unamended Act an aggrieved person has a right of filing an appeal against the original order even though file...
K. Sugithakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC80
ORDERT. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. This petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed by one K. Sugirthakumar, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction; (a) directing the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner herein by name Sugirthakumar, son of Krishna Pillai, now confined in Central Prison, Madras, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forth-with; (b) directing the respondents to pay a just and reasonable amount as compensation to the petitioner herein; (c) directing the Central Bureau of Investigation, the fourth respondent herein, to investigate the incident on 27.2.1995 in Central Prison, Madras, when the petitioner and others were attacked and proceed against the offenders as per law; (d) directing the respondents to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner herein in any of the private Hospitals in Madras having the required facility at the cost of the State; and (e) Pass such further or other order or o...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kovindan and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC113
ORDER1. The appeal has been filed by an Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against an award in M.C.O.P. No. 380 of 1993 dated 22.3.1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- to the claimants (respondents 1 to 3 herein) with interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition as well as costs of the claim petition. There was also an apportionment by the Tribunal directing a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each to claimants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 to 2 herein) and a sum of Rs. 41,000/- to the minor claimant. The amount payable to the minor claimant was directed to be deposited in a Bank till the attaining of the majority of the minor with a direction to pay over the quarterly interest to the first claimant. Inasmuch as the owner of the vehicle had remained exparte, in the proceedings before the lower court, the Insurance Company is disputing their liability as well as the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants. It...
Saratha's Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC212
Janarthanam, J.1. This appeal arises out of confirmation of penalty imposed during adjudication proceedings. 2. (a) One V. Vaithialingam, it is said, had contravened the provisions of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973--for short 'FERA'), in having received Rs. 6,567.48, otherwise than through an authorised dealer in foreign exchange by order or on behalf of one V. Subramanian of Ceylon and in having made a payment of Rs. 10,000 to one P. Shanmugham Pillai of Malaysia respectively. Show-cause notices of even date, namely, 28.2.1981 were issued to him. (b) Likewise, one S. Sivalingam appeared to have contravened the provisions of Sections 9(1)(d) of FERA and 5(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in having made a payment of Rs. 6,567.48 to one V. Vaithialingam in India by order or on behalf of one V. Subramanian of Ceylon, a person, resident outside India and in having placed a sum of Rs. 7,400 in the books of accounts...
Chinnasamy Pillai and Five ors. Vs. K. Marappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC318
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These two connected second appeals arise out of O.S. No. 602 and O.S. No. 603 of 1980 respectively. In both the suits, respective plaintiffs are different and one is mother of the other. Defendants are same in both the suit and it is those defendants who have preferred these two second appeals. Each of the said suits is for recovery of an identical sum of Rs. 3,108-50. In each of the two cases, it is claimed that the appellants have received the abovesaid sums as advance amount under the relevant suit sale agreement under which the said defendants are vendors, and the respective plaintiffs are purchasers.2. Though both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court, in the first appeals filed by the respective plaintiffs/respondents herein namely, A.S. No. 13 and 14 of 1982 respectively, respective suits have been decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decrees, the abovesaid defendants have preferred these two second appeals. The only submission of the learned ...
Tamilselvi and 5 ors. Vs. Pandiyan Educational Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC73
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 9384 of 1994 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I.A. No. 7168 of 1995 in the said suit, 'extending the exparte injunction and adjourning the case to 21-7-1995'. The said suit filed by the respondents herein, who are Pandian Educational Board and its alleged office bearers, is for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in the suit (strangely including defendants 7 and 8 who are Director of Technical Education and State Bank of India respectively and who are not parties herein) from causing any disturbance to the plaintiffs in the management of the said Pandian Educational Board of Tirupattur which runs Pandian Polytechnic Institute at Tirupattur. The plaint in the said suit is dated 21-10-1994. The above said I.A. No. 7168 of 1995 sought for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., pending di...
Kasthuri K.A. Lankaram and ors. Vs. Sri Sundararaja Perumal Devasthana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ208
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed in both the Courts below, the defendants 10 to 13 in O.S. No. 35 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram have preferred this second appeal against the concurrent decree for possession of the suit properties granted against defendants 1 to 8 by the Courts below.2. Against the very same Judgment of the trial Court in the abovesaid O.S. No. 35 of 1987 there were two first appeals viz., A.S. No. 40 of 1992 filed by the abovesaid defendants 10 to 13 and A.S. No. 137 of 1991 filed by the 4th defendant in the said suit. Both the said first appeals were heard together and a common judgment was delivered by the lower appellate court, dismissing both the said first appeals. While the present appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 40 of 1992, the 4th defendant has filed a separate second appeal, viz., S.A. No. 841 of 1995. The said S.A. No. 841 of 1995 came up before me for admission on 19.7.1995 and after consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›