Chennai Court October 1996 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.
K. Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ553Mad; (1996)IIMLJ630
ORDER1. The facts to the extent they are relevant and required for the disposal of these writ petitions are the following : The petitioner is a widow. Her son K. Ekambaram was working as Section Supervisor (Telecom) in the Department of Tele Communication under the second respondent. He had joined the service on February 1, 1955. He had completed 37 years of service. He was eligible for pension. He was a bachelor and died on June 10, 1992. After his retirement he was given monthly pension for the months of April and May 1992 as he had taken voluntary retirement with effect from April 1, 1992. He was the only son of the petitioner providing her daily bread. She applied to the second respondent by her letter dated July 22, 1992 to pay her family pension amount stating the fact of the death of her son. Petitioner received the intimation from the second respondent bearing No. TA/Pen/C. 601/16 dated October 19, 1992 that as per Rule 54 of the Central Government Pension Rules, the mother of ...
Kassiammal Vs. Mir Sulthan Mohideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC313
ORDERJagadeesan, J. 1. The defendant in O.S.No. 390 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. The Plaintiff, the respondent herein filed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the lease period had expired and the defendant failed to pay the rent from October 1989. The defendant filed R.C.O.P.No. 41 of 1990 before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry seeking permission to deposit the rent before the Court. The petition was dismissed. Inspite of the dismissal, the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff and hence she is liable to be evicted. The plaintiff claimed title to the property through his father.2. The defendant filed written Statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had been paying the rent to the plaintiff's father and recently she came to know that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and therefore she did not pay the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant had set-up ...
Ramalakshmi Vs. therasmari Santha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ100
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The landlady who succeeded before the Rent Controller but lost before the appellate authority is the petitioner in this revision.2. The landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif/Rent Controller, Ambasamudram, for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1989. According to the landlady, in spite of the notice, the rent was not paid by the tenant and that the tenant has sent a reply containing false allegations. The tenant contended that the property originally belonged to one Ulagammal and that the present landlady has purchased it by sale deed dated 27.4.1987. The tenant further contended that she has paid an advance of Rs. 5,000 to Ulagammal and that at the time of sale, it was agreed that the tenant should continue to pay the original rent of Rs. 50 and that the advance should only be refunded when the tenant vacates the property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the...
V.G. Chinnasamy Gounder and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer, Sri Ragupa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ342
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This Special Tribunal Appeal No. 2 of 1985 is by two persons who claimed patta under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) on the ground that they are entitled to the Kudivaram in the inam land in question immediately before the appointed day, namely, 15.2.1965. Though originally, the Settlement Tahsildar granted patta as claimed, the respondent temple who claimed patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the said Act on the footing that both the warms vested with it, filed appeal C.M.A. No. 68 of 1977 before the Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Settlement Tahsildar and granted patta in favour of the respondent - temple holding that both the warms to the land in question were with the said temple. The appellate tribunal came to the said conclusion after referring to the Inam Fair Register Extract particulars taken from the file of the Settlement Tahsildar. As per the said particulars, under the h...
The Managing Director, Nadippaisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad204
ORDER1. Nadippisai Pulavar K. R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mill is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. Revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the order made in A.P. No. 217 of 1991 and 218 of 1991 dated 18-3-1992 on the file of Slate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras.2. The case of the petitioners is briefly narated hereunder :-- The 1st respondent in both the revisions in order to raise sugar cane crop in their respective field, applied tobecome a shareholder of the petitioner sugar mill through the 2nd respondent herein, which is a primary agricultural co-operative bank. It is their further case that both of them were agriculturists and after becoming a member of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank requested the said bank to advance loan to become a shareholder of the petitioner sugar mill. It is further averred that as per the request made by the 1st respondent herein, in each case, the 2nd respondent has sanctioned loan an...
Sathyanarayana Vs. Pallipattu Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas395(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The then Special Officer, Pallipattu Co-operative Land Development Bank, against whom an awards for Rs. 16,197.40 passed by the arbitrator, confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal in S.T.C.A. No. 248 of 1986 is the petitioner in the above civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts leading to the filling of the present revision are narrated hereunder : In order to provide relief to indebted agriculturists, the Government to Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms. No. 389, Co-operative, dated September 6, 1984, brought forward a scheme in which certain reliefs were granted to indebted agriculturists. As per the said Government order, the interest on the principal overdue and the penal interest as on June 30, 1984, shall be waived provided the entire outstanding dues as on June 30, 1984, are fully paid before December 31, 1984. It is further seen in the later Government order, namely G.O.Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28...
The Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar R.K. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC186
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. Revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the order made in A.P. No. 217 of 1991 and 218 of 1991 dated 18.3.1992 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras. 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly narrated hereunder :- The 1st respondent in both the revisions in order to raise sugar cane crop in their respective field, applied to become a shareholder of the petitioner sugar mill through the 2nd respondent herein, which is a primary agricultural co-operative bank. It is their further case that both of them were agriculturists and after becoming a member of the 2nd respondent co-operative bank requested the said bank to advance loan to become a shareholder of the petitioner sugar mill. It is further averred that as per the request made by the 1st respondent herein, in each case, the 2nd respondent has...
M/S R.R. Techno Mechanicals (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. Democration Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC684
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S. No. 430 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamalle, aggrieved by the order in I.A. NO. 1956 of 1995 granting interim injunction, has filed C.R.P. No. 2005 of 1995 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, defendant in O.S. No. 127 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee, aggrieved by the order of extension of interim injunction, granted in I.A. No. 623 of 1995, has filed C.R.P. No. 2025 of 1995 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this court.2. I shall take the first C.R.P., namely, C.R.P. No. 2005 of 1995. The respondent herein/plaintiff, namely, Democration Labour Union represented by its Secretary filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant' management, its men, servants and agents from removing 'B' schedule properties from the 'A' schedule factory premises during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. In order to understand the case of the plaintiff, it...
Velammal Vs. Sivan Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC376
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This Revision filed by the wife is directed against the order passed dated 20.12.1993 in Cri. Revision Petition No. 138/92 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, setting aside the order of maintenance in M.C. No. 1/92, dated 28.8.1992.2. The petitioner herein filed a petition for maintenance alleging that after the marriage, the respondent demanded more dowry and tortured her and ultimately he drove her out and as such, she is unable to maintain herself and that she claims maintenance from her husband. However, this was contested by the husband denying the said allegations. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate found mat the wife Velammal, the petitioner herein, was entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month from me date of the petition dated 2.9.1991. This order was passed 01^28.8.1992. Aggrieved over this order, the husband filed a revision before the Sessions Court in Cri. Revision Petition No. 138/92.3. The only ground mat was urged ...
Major S. Veerasamy Vs. the Management of Andhra Special and Cultural A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC740
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 36 of 1991 The order passed by the learned single Judge reads thus:In view of the fact that the respondent as directed by this Court, has paid the total sum of Rs. 45,000 to the petitioner, which the petitioner has also acknowledged without prejudice to his right and under protest, the contempt application is dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved it is open to him to challenge in any appropriate proceedings with reference to the order of termination and claim consequential relief, if the petitioner is entitled.2. The question for consideration is as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the aforesaid order passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act. is maintainable?3. Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would lie against the order of punish...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »