Chennai Court December 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.
G. Jayapandian Vs. P.C. Manickam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ350
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1981, on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, is the revision petitioner herein. The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Eviction was sought by the landlord, first respondent herein, on the ground that he requires the building for his own occupation. The tenant denied title of the landlord and claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act. He wanted that the matter should be heard at the preliminary stage itself. The Rent Controller found the point in his favour. But in the subsequent stages, namely, appeal and revision, and ultimately, in the Supreme Court it was held that the relationship between the revision petitioner herein and the first respondent is that of tenant and landlord, coming with the provisions of Rent Control Act.3. Thereafter, the landlord, first respondent herein, filed I.A. No. 32 of 1993 seeking permission to incorporate certain amendments...
District Livestock Farm, Represented by Its Deputy Director Vs. P. Mut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ331
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. No. 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 31.1.1992. 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, forquashing the said awards of the respective Labour Courts.4. The case of the petitioner in short, is as follows: The District Livestock 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 Government ...
S. Mohammed Mubeen Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ243
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of writ of declaration that the selection of the third respondent in the Pondicherry General quota for the first year M.B.B.S. course session 1994-95 in the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, (for short, JIPMER), and direct the first and second respondents to cancel the seat allotted to the third respondent and to allot the same to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in JIPMER, Pondicherry for the academic year 1994-95 having fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria to one of the 15 seats reserved for admission to Pondicherry general category candidates. The admission to the M.B.B.S. course in JIPMER is made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the entrance examination conducted by the Institute strictly on merit. According to the prospectus, for a...
Jessie Thavamani Vs. Liakath Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC398; (1996)IMLJ304
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent filed the Rent Control Original Petition No. 18 of-1987' on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by the Act 28 of 1973. The respondent is the owner of the property in question, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 17.7.1984 from Dr. Margaret Mathaniel for a sum of Rs. 24,000. The petitioner is the tenant and was paying a rent of Rs. 65 per month from the year 1980. The respondent after the purchase, directed the petitioner herein to pay the rent and attorned the tenancy on him. The respondent issued registered notice through his lawyer on 26.7.1984, calling upon the petitioner to pay the rent from the date of purchase and also to deliver the property within three months, since he required the same for his personal occupation. He also terminated the tenancy o...
L.A. thengappa Gounder Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ485
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein as the owner of an extent of 1.56 aces in S.E. No. 896/1, which has been assigned R.S. No. 960/1, after re-survey proceeding. After the advent of Lower Bhavani Project (Lower Bhavani Project) canal about 40 years ago, petitioner's land has been included in the ayacut and it has been irrigated from the acquired Lower Bhavani Project canal, which runs to the immediate south of the property Number of other adjacent lands have also been included in the ayacut. There is no dispute that the lands of respondents 3 and 4 herein, which are situated in R.S. Nos. 957/1, 958/3 and 959/1, are also included in the ayacut and this respondents 3 and 4 are also entitled to have their lands irrigated from the Lower Bhavani Project canal.2. Respondents 3 and 4 gave a complaint to the Revenue Department in 1978 that the petitioner herein had obliterated the patta kanni vaikal (irrigation channel or Field Boothies), running in R.S. No. 960/1, and refused to allow...
N. Loganathan Vs. the Special Tahsildar, A.D.W.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ442
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondent as per the direction of the courts. Since the matter arises from a very narrow compass, the main writ petition itself is heard and disposed of at the admission stage, by consent of both parties.2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of lands in Nanthimangalam village, hamlet of Puducheri of Oothukottai Taluk, Chengai-M.G.R. District in Survey Nos. 52/10, 52/11, 52/12, 52/13B, 52/18, 59/12, 52/20, 52/21 and 52/22 of an extent of 0.01.5, 0.01.5, 0.04.0, 0.01.0, 0.02.6, 0.02.05, 0.02.5, 0.033.05, (Part) and 0.15.0 Hectares respectively and the said lands are now sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing House sites to Adi Dravidars of Nanthimangalam Village, hamlet of Puducheri of Oothukottai Taluk. It is stated that acquisition is sought to be made under Act 31 of 1978. According to the petiti...
Madura Sugars Limited and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ315
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. When this matter was called yesterday, no advocate appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner's representative was present in court and he represented that the Advocates were boycotting the court. We directed the matter to be posted to-day for dismissal.2. When the matter is called to-day, senior counsel, represented that he wanted to avoid unruly scenes in the court and so, he abstained from court. If that is so, it is very unfortunate for the entire Administration of Justice.3. In our opinion, it is hardly a satisfactory explanation for remaining absent from court. If a few advocates decide to boycott the courts, it is not necessary for the others to follow suit. They ought to have attended the court and if they had been prevented from carrying out their duties within the court, stern action would have been taken by the court against such persons.4. It is high time that the members of the noble profession realised their responsibilities and in particular their ...
C. Raghavalu Chettiar (Died) G.V. Sudharsan Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC670; (1996)IMLJ477
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint arc as follows: The plaintiffs grandfather Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty was the founder of Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty Charities and he was the sole trustee of the same for the performance of Thandhiarathanai services in Perumal Temples located in Madras. The house bearing new door No. 61, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 was set apart by him for the performance of the private trust in the partition deed of the family dated 2.11.1985. He had not executed any trust deed, with an absolute endowment of any properties for the performance of any specific endowment in any religious institution. There was a 'silasasanam' embedded on the walls of the house indicating the private nature of the trust in question. The object of the founder to perform the 'Thadhiarathanai services' is not with reference to any particular temple. So as to constitute a specific endowment or a Religious Charity. In view of the ...
C. Raghavalu Chettiar (Died) G.V. Sudharsan (impleaded as L.R.) Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ477
Govardhan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff's grandfather Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty was the founder of Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty Charities and he was the sole trustee of the same for the performance of Thadhiarathanai services in Perumal Temples located in Madras. The house bearing new door No. 61, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 was set apart by him for the performance of the private trust in the partition deed of the family dated 2.11.1985. He had not executed any Trust deed, with an absolute endowment of any properties for the performance of any specific endowment in any religious institution. There was a 'silasasanam' embedded on the walls of the house indicating the private nature of the trust in question. The object of the founder to perform the 'Thadhiarathanai services' is not with reference to any particular temple. So as to constitute a specific endowment or a Religious Charity. In view of the pecul...
Karamchand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Limited Vs. Manaco Properties Priva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ386
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The applicant in his affidavit contends briefly as follows : The deponent is the General Manager of the applicant. The applicant had entered into various agreements with the respondents for the purchase of approximately 40% undivided share in premises at Door No. 43-44, Montieth Road, Madras-8. The respondents has filed his report. From the report of the Commissioner, it is evident that the respondents have continued to carry on the construction work in violation of the orders of this Court. The first respondent is a limited company in which the second respondent is the Managing Director. Since the respondents have violated the orders of this Court and committed contempt of court, they have to be punished. Hence the application.2. The second respondent in his counter contends briefly as follows : The 2nd respondent tenders his unconditional apology for his violation of the order of this Court. It was not intentional or mischievous, but due to circumstances. This Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »