Chennai Court April 1995 Judgments
The Railway Co-operative Labour Contract Society Limited Vs. Union of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC38; (1995)IIMLJ422
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.A. Nos. 196 and 197 of 1995 in C.S. No. 301 of 1995. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant before us. The relevant facts are as follows : The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 586 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for an injuction restraining the defendants therein from proceeding with the award of contract for offers in tender No. CW/19/E/G/91 dated 9-9-1991 and direct the defendants to discharge and cancel the said tender and publish it a new. The grievance of the plaintiff in the suit was that the plaintiff being a co-operative society was entitled to preference over all other tenderers and when the railways published a tender notice on 9-9-1991 in the local dailies inviting offers for purchase and removal of earth and bebris from their workshop for a period of 12 months, the plaintiff participated in the tender after complying with the stipulation of earnes...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. the Election Commission of India Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ6
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. These two writ petitions are by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Madras. Since the two impugned orders in these two writ petitions are inter-related, I consider it convenient and appropriate to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 17239 of 1994 the prayer is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No. 434/I/ID.94 dated 30.6.1994 of the respondent. In W.P. No. 17238 of 1994 the order No. 494/1/94MCS/724, dated 3.8.1994 of the respondent is sought to be quashed.3. The facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are the following:The respondent who is vested with the power of superintendence, direction and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections had issued directions to the Chief Secretaries, of the States in India, directing preparation and distribution of iden...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Consultations and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.N. Sankaranarayanan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas473(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated January 28, 1994, in A.A.O. No. 483 of 1993 (since reported in [1994] 80 Comp Cas 558; [1994] 1 LW 602 whereunder the learned judge, while allowing the appeal, set aside the order of the Company Law Board dated May 14, 1993, in Company Petition No. 59 of 1992 holding, overruling the preliminary objection of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us in this appeal, that the petition presented under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, by some of the members/shareholders of the company in question is maintainable and has chosen to take up for further hearing the company petition as also C.A. Nos. 98, 133 and 134 of 1993. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order under challenge and the stage of the proceedings at which the challenge has been undertaken by the parties to the proceedings, we desist from dealing with the merits of the claims pertaining to the main dispu...
Tag this Judgment!N. Selvaraj Vs. the District Magistrate and Collector of Nagai Quaide- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2192
Janarthanam, J.1. One N. Selvaraj, petitioner, is the brother of the detenu Subbaian. The detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case as set out in the grounds of detention, he had come to adverse notice in eight other cases. The District Magistrate and Collector, of Nagapattinam Quaide-Milleth District, Nagapattinam (first respondent) in exercise of the powers confered by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings C.O. No. 75/94 dated 5-12-94 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.2. Mr. A. K. S. Thahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points :(1) There was no due and proper intimation to the blood relations of the detenu as respects the place of his detention within a reasonable time from the date of his detention; (2) The representation dated 22-12-9...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu State Primary, Agricultural Co-operative Bank, All Empl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC506
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The prayer made in this writ petition is to direct the respondents Viz.. respondents 1 to 3 to comply with the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules in appointing a person to the post of Secretary of the third respondent-bank. The petitioner is an association of the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank.2. The third respondent has filed counter. The fourth respondent who was impleaded subsequently on his own petition has also filed counter.3. The case of the petitioner is that the recruitment to the post of Secretary is governed by Rule 149 and in case of direct appointment the provisions of 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act Rules 1983 have to be complied with before any valid appointment can be made to the post of Secretary.4. The respondent/bank in its counter has stated that the only employee of the petitioner, in respect of whom the petitioner has claimed that he is a person...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. N. Santhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC626
D. Raju, J.1. A subtle as well as an important and interesting question of law arises for our consideration in the above appeal. The question is as to whether a divorced woman can be said to be a deserted woman so as to entitled her to stake a claim for a seat in the Special Categories reserved for 'Deserted Women' in category (ix) of Annexure-I to the prospectus issued for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses--Medical/Paramedical for 1994-95.2. (a). The State Government and the Selection Committee for the course in question who were the respondents in the writ petition are the appellants before us. The respondent herein has filed W.P. No. 13987 of 1994 (since reported in 1995-1-L.W.330= 1995 Writ L.R. 180) praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents in the writ petition to publish the merit list of selected candidates for the seats reserved for the category of deserted women and allot one seat to her for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1994-95. The claim of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sengali and 20 ors. Vs. the Executive Officer, Mettur Town Committees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC26
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that they had encroached on the Main Road in Mettur Dam years ago. The respondent Town Panchayat had been collecting encroachment fees. In the year 1990, the respondent took steps to evict the petitioners. W.P. Nos. 3892, 4836 and 4837 were filed in 1991 and these Writ Petitions were allowed as follows:'In case, the petitioners are encroachers, it is open to the Mettur Town Committee, Mettur Dam, Salem District, to take action against the petitioners according to law, after giving notice to the petitioners. It is also well settled that even assuming that the petitioners are encroachers, procedure prescribed for eviction of encroachment had to be followed before dispossessing the encroachers.'Thereafter notices were issued in June, 1992 Under Section 182(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) giving 15 days to remove the encroachments. Though the Mettur Town is governed by the Mettur Townshi...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyaperumal Nadar Vs. Santhanam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC313
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 562 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vriddhachalam, is the appellant.2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed the above suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from interfering with his possession, and in the alternative, to recover possession from the defendants.3. The material facts are as follows :-Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. The first defendant herein filed O.S. No. 246 of 1969, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vriddhachalam, claiming half share in the plaint items in that suit. The sole defendant therein is the second defendant in the present suit. The suit was filed on 17.1.1969. A preliminary decree was passed on 26.3.1979, and a final decree was also passed on 20.3.1971. As per the final decree, the plaintiff therein was allotted half share and the second defendant herein was given the remaining half. The plaintiff w...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Srinivasa thevar Vs. Sundarambal Alias Prema, W/O. Chandrakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ247
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent landlady filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 97 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry praying for the eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1980 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. According to the landlady, the building in question is a brick built structure covered with Asbestos roof in an area of 5 metres east-west and 6 metres north-south bearing door No. 212, kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry. The superstructure is part of the area under the occupation of the tenant and the remaining portion situate on the north of the said superstructure is vacant. According to the landlady, the demised premises under the occupation of the tenant does not yield good return and as per the present condition, the building cannot be properly utilised. Therefore, she intends to demolish the existing superstruc...
Tag this Judgment!Renganathan Vs. Pandurangan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ505
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant in H.R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1990, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tindivanam.2. By virtue of the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the first respondent herein, to get himself impleaded in the proceeding and allowed him to continue the proceeding already initiated by the previous landlord.3. The original petition was filed by the previous owner as H.R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1990. Pending proceeding, the respondent No. 1 purchased the property as per sale deeds dated 23.12.1991 and 24.12.1991. Thereafter, an application was filed by the very same respondent to get himself impleaded as a respondent in the proceeding, which he subsequently withdraw. Later he filed the present application, namely, I.A. No. 5 of 1994, for getting himself impleaded as additional petitioner in the R.C.O.P. In the meanwhile, the original petition itself w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »