Chennai Court December 1996 Judgments
Arunachalam M. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1229Mad; (1997)IMLJ386
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner, while he was working as Junior Engineer Grade-II at R.Pudupalayam was transferred to Thalaivasal Section on June 5, 1987. The petitioner accepted the transfer and received the travelling allowance of Rs. 400 to enable him to join duty in the new place. However, he did not join in the transferred place. He made a request to transfer him to Thanjavur which was negatived by the first respondent. The petitioner did not join duty even thereafter, but was applying for leave frequently. Therefore, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner on certain charges and the enquiry was conducted with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner even after the receipt of the notice for the enquiry did not participate in the enquiry. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but inspite of the same, there was no participation by the writ petitioner in the enquiry. Finally, the noti...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arunachalam Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ386
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner, while he was working as Junior Engineer, Grade-II at R. Pudupalayam was transferred to Thalaivasal Section on 5.6.1987. The petitioner accepted the transfer and received the travelling allowance of Rs. 400 to enable him to join duty in the new place. However, he did not join in the transferred place. He made a request to transfer him to Thanjavur which was negatived by the first respondent. The petitioner did not join duty even thereafter, but was applying for leave frequently. Therefore, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner on certain charges and the enquiry was conducted with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner even after the receipt of the notice for the enquiry did not participate in the enquiry. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but inspite of the same, there was no participation by the writ petitioner in the enquiry. Finally, the notice...
Tag this Judgment!B. Shanmugham @ Selvam Vs. Deivayani @ Devika
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC463
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision by the petitioner/husband is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate; Saidapet, dated 5.9.1994 in M.C. No. 5 of 1989, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at Rs. 350/- p.m. to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month, each to the two minor daughters.2. The wife respondent herein filed a petition before the Court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C., again the petitioner / husband, claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor two daughters. After enquiry, the learned judicial Magistrate ordered maintenance by order dated 5-9-1994 at the rate mentioned above from the date of the application viz. 2-9-1988.3. In this revision, merits have not been canvassed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the only point, that in the absence of any reason or without stating any reason the learned Judicial Magistrate is erred in law, in giving effect to the order of maintenance with effect from the date of application viz. 2-9-1988. He further conte...
Tag this Judgment!R. Karuppan Vs. R. Namachivayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1998(99)ELT214(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by Kanakraj, J., in W.P. No. 3870/96, dated 16-8-1996 : dismissing the writ petition which is filed for issuing a writ of Certicrarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed in proceedings No. O.S. 377/96, dated 18-3-1996 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the weapons, and direct the payment of costs and punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. The order dated 18-3-1996 which is sought to be quashed is an order holding that the five fire arms brought by the appellant from London are not entitled to the benefit of the Customs Notification 146/94, that the value of the fire arms was Rs. 4,02,379/- and that the Fire Arms had been imported without valid import licence, in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and was liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1992. A fu...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakodi Vs. Gnanaprakasam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC51
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order dated 3.10.1991 in I.A.No.362 of 1991 in O.S.No.108 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court,Villupuram.2. The facts of the case which led to the filing of the revision petition are as follows:The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and decree-holder in O.S.No.108 of 1989. Pursuant to the decree, the suit property was sold in court auction on 17-1-1991 and thereafter, the sale was confirmed on 18-6-1991 and delivery of property was taken on 4-11-1991 and delivery was recorded on 7-11-1991 and the sale proceeds were deposited in that Court. It is represented on behalf of the judgment-debtor, 1st respondent herein that the 1st respondent had taken some steps challenging the court auction proceedings. However, he is not in a position to state the stage of the revision petition said to have been preferred by the 1st respondent for want of instructions from the 1st respondent. Meanwhile, the revision petitioner seems to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Anjuman-e-palah-millan-dharul Hifaz by Its Trustees V.M. Abdulla Basha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC230; (1997)IMLJ378
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P.No. 1815 of 1996 is against the order dated 19-2-1996 in M.P.No. 158 of 1996 in R.C.No. 458 of 1990 on the file of the VII Judge of Small Causes Court, Madras.2. C.R.P.No. 1817 of 1996 is against the order dated 29-2-1996 in M.P.No. 157 of 1996 in R.C.A.No. 457 of 1990, on the file of the VII Judge of Small Causes Court, Madras.3. M.P.No. 158 of 1996 has been filed before the appellant authority under Sections. 144 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for redelivery of the building to the respondent herein. Similarly M.P.No. 157 of 1996 was filed for similar relief in respect of another building.4. The petitioners herein are the landlords in both the Rent Control Appeals and the petitions mentioned above. Since, the petitioner and the respondent are the same persons in both the Civil Revision Petitions and the facts and law are similar in both the petitions, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together for consideration with the consent of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Ummu Salma Beevi Vs. Balaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC164; (1997)IMLJ369
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is against an order in M.P.No. 946 of 1996 in R.C.A.No. 416 of 1996 dated 5-8-1996 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The landlady has preferred this revision against the order mentioned above by the Rent Control Appellate authority, directing her to be summoned, for examination with reference to Ex.P.1 an authorisation given in favour of her son one Zakir Hussain, in the rent control proceedings.3. The respondent filed M.P.No. 745 of 1995 in R.C.O.P.No. 1722 of 1994 for the same relief, but the Rent Controller has rejected the petition. As against the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 416 of 1996. Pending the said Rent Control Appeal, M.P.No. 946 of 1996 has been filed by the respondent.4. The appellate authority has allowed the petition holding that the interests of justice demands that the signature of the petitioner in Ex.P.1 must be ascertained by exa...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Albert and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC206
ORDERK. Sampath, J. 1. The appeal arises out of arbitration proceedings. The arbitrators appointed by the parties having disagreed regarding the invoking of penal clause and the payment of interest, the matter went before the umpire who by his award dated 25.4.1990 held that the appellant/opposite party would be entitled to invoke the penal clause in respect of 503.49 MTs. valued at Rs. 8,60,907.20 and that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,06,558 with interest at 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till date of decree. The claimant had claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1984. The claimant preferred two original petitions, viz., O.P.No. 394 of 1991 seeking permission of the Court to file the award before the court; O.P.No. 517 of 1992 under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award of the Umpire and to enhance the award amount to Rs. 3,99,098 with interest at 12% per annum from 1.4.1984; and an Application No. 460...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy and 4 ors. Vs. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC634
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 171 of 1985, who lost in both the Courts below have come upto with this second appeal, challenging the correctness of the judgments of both the Courts.2. Between the same parties, there was another suit as O.S. No. 212 of 1982, for declaration of title and consequential injunction. In that property, there were few trees which were cut and removed by the defendant. That suit was decreed and it was confirmed in appeal. By the time of institution of this suit, it was said that a second appeal is pending before this Court. Even at the time of filing the earlier suit, some of the trees were cut and removed by the defendants. Damages was not claimed, and plaintiff in that case reserved his right to file a suit separately, claiming the same.3. After decree, the present suit was filed to recover the damages to the extent of Rs. 6,000. Defendant admitted that he cut and removed the trees. But the only point he urged before Court below was that the...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramaniam and ors. Vs. T. Velusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC612
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.11.1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 11552 of 1996, issuing a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi to decide the proceedings under Section 145, Crl.P.C. on or before 31.12.1996.2. No doubt, in the writ petition initially the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 22.7.1996 in M.C.No. 74 of 1996 -- A1 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi extending the period of the order passed under Section 144, Crl.P.C. Subsequently, the prayer came to be amended and the following prayer was sought for:-Pass appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and more particularly a Writ of Declaration declaring that the order of the 1st respondent bearing G.O.Ms.No. 917 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 16.8.1996 referred to in the counter affidavit of the first respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the 1st respondent to communicate the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »