Chennai Court December 1995 Judgments
Oriental Benefit and Deposit Society Ltd. Vs. Bharat Kumar K. Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas947(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The grievance of the respondent is that his nomination for election as a director in the annual general body meeting to be held on September 30, 1995, was rejected illegally on account of mala fides on the part of the appellant-company. The respondent sought for a declaration that the said rejection is illegal and mala fide. The respondent has also prayed for a declaration that the company is not entitled to transact the subject mentioned as item7 in the notice for the annual general body meeting. The said item is to confirm the co-option of Sri K. Divakar as director in the vacancy caused by the death of K. Kumarasami, ex-director and legal adviser. Items 7 and8 are shown under the caption 'special business'. According to the respondent, the subject cannot be discussed in the annual general body meeting without complying with the provisions of Article 34 of the articles of association of the company. The third prayer in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansiri Investments and Leasing Private Limited and ors. Vs. Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ639
Govardhan, J.1. Third petitioner in his affidavit contends as follows: C.S. No. 291 of 1995 was filed by the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction and O.A. No. 183 of 1995 was filed for the relief of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents their agents and servants, or anybody claiming under them from in any manner acting on the letter dated 6.2.1995 from the first respondent to the second applicant and copied to the second respondent and second to fifth applicants preventing in any manner either directly or indirectly the applicants exercising any and all rights conferred under the Memorandum of understanding and Power of Attorney dated 11th November, 1994. This Court passed an order on 16th May, 1995 allowing O.A. No. 183 of 1995 making the order of ad-interim injunction absolute in the above terms. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners forwarded the Power of Attorney which had been given in their favour by the first defendant for being duly registered so...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Distilleries Private Limited by Its Director M. Sudakar Reddy V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ479
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras in I.A. No. 13499 of 1988 in O.S. No. 7871 of 1988, on 29.9.1988 I.A. No. 13499 of 1988 was filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondent, his servants, agents, representatives from in any manner distributing, exhibiting screening or exploiting the Kannada picture 'New Delhi' by using the prints and publicities in his hands. The suit O.S. No.7871 of 1988 was filed for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to the rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Kannada picture 'New Delhi' in any place whatsoever by using the prints and publicities of the said picture in his hands and also for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff valued the reliefs claimed in the plaint for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction at a sum of Rs. 900 and has paid a total court-fee of Rs. 68 thereon ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Indu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2295]
1. The petitioner has challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal directing the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 being the equivalent of four years' wages to the second respondent herein as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The second respondent had been dismissed from service by the petitioner/bank on August 16, 1984. 2. The second respondent, as Bill Collector, was required to collect the amounts payable by way of pension, to certain pensioners who are constituents of the bank, for credit to their accounts at the Bank's Anna Road branch. The second respondent after collecting the amounts from the post office a sum of Rs. 1,736 on November 26, 1983, Rs. 1,112 on December 17, 1983; Rs. 2,034 on January 23, 1984 and a sum of Rs. 434 on January 28, 1984, did not remit the monies to the bank immediately after the monies were collected from the post office. After his misappropriation came to light, he remitted the monies to the bank, between January and March, 1984. The payme...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Trichy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT502(Mad)
ORDER1. Both these Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners to direct the 3rd respondent to release the goods as per Bill of Entry bearing No. 34, dated 5-4-1995 and relating to the import of kraft cutting waste paper from Singapore by following the orders of the 2nd respondent herein made in his common order dated 30-8-1995 in Appeal Nos. C24B/13/95 and C. No. 24B/14/95 and Order in Appeal Nos. 71 & 72 (Customs) by issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction. 2. The Petitions were admitted on 20-11-1995. It is stated that the appellate authority has directed the 3rd respondent to release the goods as per the Bill of Entry bearing No. 34, dated 5-4-1995 and relating to the import of kraft cutting waste paper from Singapore by following the orders of the 2nd respondent herein made in his common order dated 30-8-1995 in Appeal Nos. C/24B/13/5 & C24B/14/95. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once an order of clearance in terms of...
Tag this Judgment!District Livestock Farm Vs. P. Muthiah and 64 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ872Mad; (1996)IMLJ331
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions themselves have been taken up for final hearing.2. Admit. W.P. 9064 of 1995 3. Writ petition No. 9064 of 1995 has been filed against the award passed by the Principal Labour Court. Madurai in I.D.No. 143 of 1987 dated January 31, 1992. Writ Petition Nos. 10304 to 10349 of 1995 are against the common award passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in C.P. Nos. 188 of 1993, etc. batch, for quashing the said awards of the respective Labour Courts.4. The case of the petitioner in short, is as follows ; The District Live Stock Farm at Abishegapatti, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District is functioning as a Research and Livestock Development Centre wherein sheep and cattle are reared and fodder crops are raised. Poultry is also maintained in the Livestock farm for the purpose of research and development of Livestock and for distribution to the public. Various developmental activities and schemes formulated by the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!J. Venkataraman and anr. Vs. V. Mathibooshanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC690; (1996)IMLJ481
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This testamentary suit is filed by two plaintiffs, who are admittedly the children of late J. Nagabooshanam Ammal, who died on 8.11.1984. Apart from the plaintiffs, deceased had left the defendant V. Mathibooshanam and one Mukuntharaman also as her children. It is said that Nagabooshanam Ammal had executed a will on 7.5.1980, bequeathing properties in favour of plaintiffs. No executor has been appointed. Plaintiffs undertake to administer the property. They say that they are the universal legatees, entitled to get Letters of Administration.2. When caveat was entered by the daughter Mathibooshanam, the petition was converted into a testamentary suit.3. In the written statement filed by the caveator, she denied execution of any will by her mother and also put forward contentions questioning the genuineness of the will produced by the plaintiffs.4. On the above pleadings, an issue was suggested namely, 'whether the will dated 7,5.1980 is true, valid and genuine?5...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kaliamman Endowment Trust Vs. the Tamil Nadu Temple Administration ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC313
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri. K. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order of the third respondent dated 5.9.1995 based on the communication of the second respondent dated 24.8.1995 in Na. Ka.No.12418/95 A3, is patently illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel submitted that although the impugned order is challenged on several grounds, he emphasised in the first place one ground viz., the impugned order passed by the third respondent said to have been on the basis of the communication of the second respondent is one passed without jurisdiction and authority in law. In support of this submission, he pointed out to paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 which reads thus:'It is submitted that no doubt, the power under Section 7-B shall be exercisable by the Temple Administration Board. It is submitted that no final order was passed by the 2nd respondent and only the order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!N.A.S. Ansari Vs. M. Sarangan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ388
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the landlord.2. Petitioner succeeded before the Rent Controller. But the order was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the revision.3. In the eviction petition, landlord wanted eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has denied his title without any bona fides and also committed wilful default in paying the rent, and that the bona fide requires the building by way of additional accommodation.4. It is not disputed by the tenant that he has executed Ex. A-7 lease deed, which is a registered document. He has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 75 per mensem as rent. When the rent was not paid as agreed, notice was issued, for which a reply was sent by the respondent herein, denying the title of the landlord. It is averred in the eviction petition that the denial of title is lacking in good faith and the person referred to in the reply notice has no right in the building and that the respondent has come into possession only on the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Roche Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ375
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide a seat in first year M.B.B.S. course to the petitioner in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu in the category of free seats, pleading that he completed his higher secondary course in the year 1994 securing 1021 marks out of 1200; he wrote the entrance examination conducted by the second respondent for the year 1994 and secured 93 marks out of 100. Thus he secured 188/200 marks in the Core subjects and 93/100 in entrance examination, aggregating to 281/300 marks.2. He is an eminent sportsman (Tennis). He participated in the National level All India Junior Tennis Championship held at Egmore Stadium, Madras in January, 1993 while was pursuing his higher secondary course. The State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 118, Education, dated 21.2.1994 to encourage outstanding sports talented students by providing grace marks. The said G.O. was not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »