Chennai Court August 1995 Judgments
Daivid John Hopkins Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad314; 1995(2)CTC335
ORDER1. The petitioner is the citizen of United Kindom. He came to India in the year 1970. Between 1970 and 1985 he stayed at Swami Vivekananda Sevashram, Swami Vivekananda Home of Renunciation and Service and he was initiated into Sanhasin Disciple of the Ramakrishna Order. He decided to become the citizen of India. On 11-6-1985, he assumed the Hindu name Swami Shivapranananda. But, however, on 22-3-1988 he gave up the assumed Hindu name and reverted back to his original name. In the meanwhile, on 1-2-1985 he sent an application to the respondents to get Indian Citizenship. The petitioner was informed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 6-4-1985 that since Rules have not been framed for registration of the British Citizens as Indian Citizens, the petitioner's application for registration does not lie and cannot be considered. The petitioner did not take any steps to agitate the matter. By the end of April, 1985 the petitioner returned to England. Till October, 1992 he st...
Tag this Judgment!Sheelendra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT255(Mad)
ORDER1. The third respondent was appointed as their auctioneer by the first respondent to auction certain abandoned goods which were lying in the Port of Madras. The auction was held on 28-7-1994 and the petitioner participated in the auction through its authorised representative. The petitioner is the successful bidder in respect of lot No. 560/90, the bid amount being Rs. 10.50 lakhs. Before ever the auction was confirmed, the first respondent received a letter from one Amith Enterprises stating that they are interested in buying the lot for Rs. 14 lakhs. The first respondent cancelled the earlier auction and once again the said lot was put to auction. On 30-9-1994 on which date also the petitioner renewed his bid of Rs. 10.50 lakhs, which is the highest. This time also, before ever the confirmation was made, the same Amith Enterprises wrote a letter to the first respondent, offering to buy the goods for Rs. 12.50 lakhs. Hence the goods were once again brought to auction on 27-10-199...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and 3 ors. Vs. A.J. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC23
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. When the writ appeal came up for hearing, we thought it necessary to hear the Writ Petition 3662 of 1995 along with the writ appeal, as the writ appeal arose out of the interim order passed in the said writ petition. Accordingly, both the matters are posted before us for hearing. We have heard both sides.2. The writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 5th July, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.M.P. 6050 of 1995 filed in W.P. 3662 of 1995. Learned Single Judge has allowed W.M.P. 6050 of 1995 filed in W.P. 3662 of 1995 and directed the return of the documents in the following terms:Following the above decision, I direct the respondents to return the documents to the petitioner within two weeks from this date since the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents have been met in the above referred decision. I am not inclined to order for furnishing security by the petitioner while handing over passport to him when the respondents have other...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Ramakrishna Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Smt. Nagammal Alias Nagabushana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ613
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Two plaintiffs have jointly filed this suit for declaring that the plaintiffs alone are the sole and absolute owners of the plaint A Schedule Properties, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, servants and men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A Schedule Property either by preventing the plaintiffs from collecting the rents from the tenants in the A Schedule Property or in any other manner whatsoever and for other consequential reliefs.2. The plaint A Schedule Property is a land measuring 85 x 19 sq.ft. with buildings thereon. The same was acquired on 19.11.1948 by late Saraswathi Ammal, wife of the first plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that the said acquisition was really by the funds supplied by the first plaintiff (her husband). Ex.P-7 is the registration copy of the sale deed. The first plaintiff and deceased Saraswathi Ammal had no issues. It is averred that the secon...
Tag this Judgment!G. Natarajan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Represented by Its Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ103
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.5927 of 1994 on the file of the XIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has filed this civil revision petition, which arises out of I.A. No. 14670 of 1994 (wrongly mentioned as I.A. No. 14670 of 1994 in the memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition). The said I.A. was filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, praying for stay of the said suit under the said provision, on the ground that the parties are bound by the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 26.11.1992 between the parties. Though the said I.A. was dismissed by the trial court, on appeal by defendants 1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3 herein) in C.M.A. No. 148 of 1994, the lower appellate court while allowing the appeal, granted the stay prayed for and hence the present civil revision petition by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is the Indian Oil Corporation and defendants 2 and 3 are only officials of the said Corporation.2....
Tag this Judgment!Baskaran Vs. the Commissioner of College Education and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC513; (1996)IMLJ32
ORDERSrinivasan, J.A.INTRODUCTION.1. This application is to review the order in W.A.No. 1256 of 1992 dated 17-12-1993 and for setting aside the judgment as illegal, imcompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') was not a party to the appeal. He obtained permission to file the present review application in C.M.P.No. 6622 of 1995. The Bench, which granted permission on 27-4-1995, made it clear in the order that the same was subject to the rights of the respondents object to the same, if so advised.2. The third respondent in the application is the contesting respondent and he will be referred to herein as 'the third respondent'. He was the petitioner in W.P. No. 18609 of 1991, which has generated the Writ Appeal and the present application. The first respondent herein is the Commissioner of Collegiate Education while the second respondent is the Management of S.B.K. College, Aruppukkottai. The second respondent is a private aided ...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Institute of Social Science by Its Secretary Vs. the Deputy Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC408
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The two petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13327 and 13328 of 1994 are part of the non teaching staff of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2993 of 1994 who are admittedly governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. They were placed under suspension on 20.4.1993, pending enquiry in the charges of grave nature frame against them. A charge memo had been issued to them on 19.4.1993. The charge against them was that they had misappropriated substantial sums of money. A police complaint is said to have been given immediately after the misappropriation came to light.2. After they were so placed under suspension, a long drawn litigation was initiated by the two employees, who approached the civil court on 2.5.1993 by filing two suits in O.S. No. 798 of 1993 and 802 of 1993 in the Court of the District Munsif at Madurai. In those suits, they challenged the decision of their employer hereinafter referred was college/institute, in constituting a committee to hold ...
Tag this Judgment!Baskaran Vs. the Commissioner of College Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ32
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. A introduction: This application is to review the order in W.A. No. 1256 of 1992 dated 17.12.1993 and for setting aside the judgment as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') was not a party to the appeal. He obtained permission to file the present review application in C.M.P. No. 6622 of 1995. The Bench which granted permission on 27.4.1995, made it clear in the order that the same was subject to the rights of the respondents to object to the same, if so advised.2. The third respondent in the application is the contesting respondent and he will be referred to herein as 'the third respondent'. He was the petitioner in W.P. No. 18609 of 1991, which has generated the writ appeal and the present application. The first respondent herein is the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, while the second respondent is the Management of S.B.K. College, Aruppukkottai. The second respondent is a private ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Sudershan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ272
Srinivasan, J.1. There is no merit whatever in this writ appeal which is a frivolous and vexatious one. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 who are Union of India represented by the Secretary to Ministry of Law and Justice and Secretary, Bar Council of India, to inquire into the circumstances that made the third respondent Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to file a complaint before the fourth respondent Commissioner of Police, Egmore, when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India and not finally disposed of. 2. The appellant was an advocate. He was removed from the rolls for misconduct by order dated 12-2-1994 passed by the Bar Council of India Instead of challenging the order by an appeal, the appellant filed W.P. No. 10165 of 1994 against a communication issued by the State Bar Council consequent to the order of the Bar Council of India. That petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 17-4-1995. 3. Earlier, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavel Vs. Kuppusamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC362
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. The revision is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam rejecting the petition filed Under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code to record discharge of the decree. In the petition, the judgment-debtor has stated that in a panchayat the decree-holder has agreed to receive Rs. 10,000/-, in full satisfaction of the decree and the amount also has been paid in the presence of the panchayatdars on the representation of the decree-holder that he would report to the Court for recording full satisfaction, but as the same was not done by the decree- holder, he has moved the Court Under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code to pass orders by terminating the Execution Petition and recording full satisfaction. The learned District Munsif without even taking the petition on file has rejected the same on the ground (hat under Order 21, Rule 2 (2-A) and (3), unless the payment has been certified, the full satisfaction could be recorded and therefore the petition was no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »