Chennai Court September 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.S. Vijayaraghavan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ27
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner, a practising advocate at Madras, has filed this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation.2. In or about 1967 an extent of 153.21 acres of land at Vilankurichi village, Coimbatore District was acquired for the establishment of the Government Medical College at Coimbatore. In 1993, the Government decided to form an amusement park by the Social Welfare Department at Coimbatore and sought for opinion of the District Collector for suitable land. The District Collector sent a proposal stating that an extent of 25.19 acres abetting the national highways in Survey Nos.451/1, 452 and 453 forms part of the Medical College can be taken for the purpose of establishing the amusement park at Coimbatore. The Government accepted the proposal and passed G.O.Ms. No. 900, Revenue (M2) Department, dated 18.10.1.994 transferring the land from the Medical Department to Social Welfare Department. Thereafter the Government has decided to entrust the land to the ...
Mohamed Gani Vs. Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ364
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The tenant, who is the respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, (filed by the respondent for the said tenant's eviction on the ground of owner's occupation, in relation to a non-residential, building), is the petitioner in this revision petition. The said revision is against the order, allowing I.A. No. 33 of 1994 in the said R.C.O.P. The said I.A. was filed by the respondent for amendment of the petition in the said R.C.O.P., so that the said petition included another ground for eviction, viz., denial of title. Admittedly the said application was filed since subsequent to the filing of the abovesaid R.C.O.P., the petitioner had denied the title of the respondent, in the counter to the said R.C.O.P.2. The only question argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has no power to amend the pleadings in the R.C.O.P., which affects the rights of parties. In other words, Order 6, Rule 17, C.P...
V.M. Vimal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad204
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is an Engineer Student now studying in Vth Semester, Mechanical Engineering in S.R.M. Engineering College, Kattankulathur on 'Free seat' basis on merit quota has filed this writ petition praying this court to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., the State of Tamil Nadu by the Secretary, Education Department and the Registrar, Anna University to accommodate him in the second respondent University, to join in the II B.E., Industrial Engineering course for the academic year 1994-95. He has also filed W.M.P. No. 24582 of 1994 in the said writ petition for an interim direction directing the second respondent to reserve a seal, and keep it vacant for the 'petitioner in the II B.E. Industrial Engineering Course for the academic year 1994-95 with the second respondent, Anna University pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as it may deem...
P. Arul and 237 ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board and 22 ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ376Mad
Raju, J. 1. These batch of cases involve for consideration identical questions of law on almost similar facts de hors the differencs and various form and nature of the relief sought for in the different writ petitions. The nature of grievance, the basis of the action and claims made and substance as well as ultimate relief sought for in all these cases are one and the same.2. The origin and historical background of the claim requires reference to understand and appreciate the grievances and the claims made in all these writ petitions. The Parliament has enacted the Apprentices Act, 1961, Central Act, 52 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in order to provide for the regulation and control of training of apprentices and for matters connected therewith. Pursuant to the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms. No. 1151 Labour and Employment dated July 18, 1979. Though under the provisions of the Act, the Employers are not under any statutory obligations to give full em...
P. Abdul Wahab Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Sub Insp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC227
ORDERArumugham, J.1. Heard. This revision is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur dated 3.7.1995 returning a unnumbered petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for the return of the vehicle-lorry bearing registration mark AP.02fT.0999.2. The petitioner by name Abdul Wahab is said to be the owner of the vehicle in question. It is stated that when the vehicle was returned after making delivery of the goods in transit, within the jurisdiction of the respondent, the agent of the petitioner was attacked by the driver and cleaner of the lorry and the occurence had taken place in the cabin of the lorry itself due to which, the said agent succumbed to injuries and that therefore, a case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code has been registered and is being investigated. The vehicle in question was also seized by the respondent police as a part of investigation. It is...
indira Nagar Residents Benefit Society Represented by Its Secretary, K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ650
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 19.7.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5415 of 1992. Learned single has rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant which is Indira Resident's Benefit Society represented by its Secretary K. Arunachalam, has sought for quashing the Notifications issued under Section 4 as well as under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) acquiring vast extent of land adjoining the existing SIPCOT lay out for the purpose of expansion of the SIPCOT lay out for industrial purpose.3. It may be pointed out here that on an earlier occasion, the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in question were challenged by one K. Gurusamy, Krishna Traders represented by Partner P. Ayyappan and Indira Nagar Welfare Association represented by its Secretary in Writ Petition Nos. 12653, 14398 and 14584 of...
V. Govindaraj Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ5
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to accept the tender of the petitioner at Rs. 10,13,000 in respect of Shop No. 3, Ward No. 10, Dindigul Town, Dindigul-Anna District.2. The brief facts are: The petitioner along with others, paid earnest money deposit on 9.5.1995 to participate in the auction for the vending of Indian made foreign liquor for the year 1995-96. The authorised officer received the amount and issued the receipt. The auction was scheduled to 9.5.1995. On that date, 150 persons intended to participate in the auction. The Sale Officer hand in glove with the 3rd respondent postponed the sale to 12.30 p.m. which was originally scheduled to 10.00 a.m. The Sale Officer did not announce the successful bidder, which in the normal course, he has to do. Petitioner quoted Rs. 10,13,000 earlier to the auction and his tender was not taken into consideration. Since the petitioner and others prevented from bidding at the auction, i...
Sri Moogambikai Enterprises Represented by Its Managing Partner, K. In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ235
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. W.A. No. 902 of 1995 is preferred against the order dated 29.3.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12917 of 1994, whereas W.A. No. 1032 of 1995 is preferred against the order dated 8.8.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2236 of 1995. These two writ appeals though arise out of different orders in two different writ petitions by two different single Judges, were heard together in view of the fact that the parties to both the writ petitions are common and the lease that has been relied on is also common. In W.P. No. 12917 of 1994, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus in the nature of directing the second respondent to reckon the lease period by ten years from 17.1.1986 with regard to Anna Gandhi Mani Mandapam situated in Survey Nos. 716 to 718/2 of Boganapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk to and in favour of the petitioner by quashing the proceedings of the second respondent bearing Letter No. 4665/93/A. 5, dated 31.3....
Udayakumar Vs. Muruganandham and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad170; 1995(2)CTC573
ORDER1. Heard both sides. The order of the learned Judge is unsustainable. The petitioner has filed execution petition in H.P.R. No. 80 of 1995 for executing the decree passed in O.S, No. 206 of 1990. He has stated in that petition that he got assignment of the decree from the plaintiff decree holder on 28-10-94 for proper consideration. There is a prayer in the said petition under Order 21, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, for recognising him as assignee decree holder. He has also prayed for further reliefs in the execution petition. Notice was ordered in the said petition by the executing court returnable by 2-4-1995. On 3-4-1995 the matter was taken up. The court recorded that service had been effected and it was sufficient. The respondent in the execution petition viz., the original decree holder and the judgment-debtor remained absent. They were set ex parte. The matter directed to be called on 7-4-1995. The executing Court ought to have ordered on that day itself the prayer reco...
K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)176; [1996]220ITR657(Mad)
ORDER--Failure of assessing officer to make inquiry.Ratio :On failure of assessing officer to make enquiry as expected, Commissioner was justified in invoking provisions of section 263 because order passed as such by the assessing officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Held :In the order passed by the Tribunal, it was shown that the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because, the assessing officer has not conducted enquiry with regard to the sale consideration said to have passed between the parties. When the assessing officer is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the assessing officer since such an order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »