Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ111
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 849 of 1974, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Chidambaram, is the appellant.2. Appellant filed the above suit, for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction on the following allegations:First defendant sold the property to the plaintiff as per Ex. A-1 dated 5.12.T938, and ever-since that date, plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of the same. It is said that the east west measurement of the property is 37 1/2 feet. It is further said that the plaintiff was the owner of the property situated east of the suit property, which was sold to the third defendant, and the east west measurement was 25 3/4 feet. Defendants, who are neighbouring property owners, are trying to trespass into the suit property and, therefore, the suit was filed for the reliefs mentioned above.3.In the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2, they admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the property covered under Ex. A-1. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ208
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case has a chequered history. The landlady who filed the eviction petition in August, 1982 is still longing for justice1 in this Court. The matter came up before this Court on an earlier occasion in revision filed by the tenant, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.11.1987 by remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the question whether the tenant has put a substantial portion of the building to a different user in the light of the observations made in the order. Both parties were given due opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence on this aspect of the matter alone. After remand, evidence was let in, both oral and documentary. The Appellate Authority on a careful consideration of the evidence placed, both oral and documentary rejected the Appeal R.C.A. No. 622 of 1983 by his order, dated 25th Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ218
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Third defendant in O.S. No. 19 of 1991, who is also the first defendant in O.S. No. 362 of 1991, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sankari, is the appellant in both the second appeals.2. There was also another suit filed by the appellant O.S. No. 329 of 1988 against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 19 of 1991. All these three suits were jointly tried and a common judgment was delivered on 29.11.1993. All the suits were dismissed. There were three appeals before the lower appellate court as A.S. Nos. 10, 11 and 41 of 1994, on the file of District Judge, Salem. A.S. No. 41 of 1994 was dismissed, confirming the Judgment of the trial court. The other two appeals were allowed. It is against the judgment in A.S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1994, these two Second Appeals are filed.3. In O.S. No. 19 of 1991, the relief sought for was, to declare the suit temple as a denominational temple exclusively belonging to and managed by the 24 Manai Telugu Chettiar Community of Amarakun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ228
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. W.P. No. 8109 of 1987 has been filed by the original petitioner for quashing the order of the respondents dated 27.7.1987 terminating his services as a physical director from the third respondent school.2. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining a diploma in physical education, he joined the third respondent school in 1959. Even though he possessed B.A. Degree, he joined the physical education diploma course. In 1961 he was appointed as Physical Director. His appointment was confirmed in that year. His salary was in the scale of B.T. Assistant, which is payable to the post of Physical Director, periodical increment also given. He reached the maximum in that scale in October, 1978. In 1978, the third respondent school became a Higher Secondary School. Even though he was eligible to be given selection grade in 1978, he was given selection grade only in 1983 by the proceedings of the Director dated 15.3.1983. The order dated 15.3.1983 was not fully i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ223
ORDERRaju, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1934 of 1970, on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, are the appellants in the above second appeal. They filed the suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to A and B schedule properties, or in the alternative, to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to the right of cart track, for their men, cart and cattle through the 'CDE' portion of the suit 'A' schedule property, and to declare the title of the plaintiffs to the suit 'B' schedule property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court, as disclosed in the plaint, which had undergone an amendment, after remand in S.A. No. 578 of 1977, by this Court was that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the sons of the 5th plaintiff, that the defendants 1 to 3 are brothers, that the plaintiffs 1 to 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]93CompCas393(Mad); 1997(3)CTC707
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7179 of 1977, on the file of the VIth Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants in the above appeal. They filed the said suit for directing the defendants to render proper accounts for the assets kept and left by A. D. Muthukrishna Naidu, since deceased on November 13, 1976, and for a decree for declaring the properties in the plaint schedule as joint family properties of the plaintiffs. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : One Ramaswamy Naidu was the father of Rengiah Naidu, Bangaru Naidu, Janakiram Naidu and Muthukrishna Naidu. Rengiah Naidu was the father of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, grand father of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. Bangaru Naidu was the father of plaintiffs Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 and husband of the sixth plaintiff. Ramaswamy Naidu died without any property. Janakiram Naidu earned enormous wealth during his lifetime and died issueless in 1955. His wife also died in 1956. The plaintiffs are the legal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1621
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order D/- 16-8-1996 passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting W.P. No. 11429 of 1996, in which the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to undertake full investigation and launch prosecution on the basis of the complaint given by it on 20th May, 1996 and to pass such other orders as are deemed necessary.2. According to the case of the petitioner, there has been a criminal embezzlement committed by one Arjunan, who acted dishonestly and committed Criminal breach of trust and misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 2,05,350/-. The respondent has informed the petitioner as follows :-'As there is no penal offence, further action was dropped on your complaint. This is for your information.' 3. It is contained very strenuously that as the complaint filed before the respondent disclosed the Criminal offence of misappropriation and fraud, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ1190Mad
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The subject matter of the writ petition is an order of the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras, dated March 31, 1986 passed under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition is hereunder: The petitioner joined the services in the second respondent-company, a public limited company, in its factory at Mettupalayam, as a Works Manager. The petitioner was given a responsible post in commissioning the plant for the production of wattle extract. The petitioner tendered his resignation during the month of October, 1968, on the ground that he was not given the necessary facilities. However, the second respondent-company persuaded the petitioner to withdraw his resignation and consequently, on the withdrawal of the resignation, revised terms of service by various office orders were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ1245Mad
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner joined in the Madras Port Trust as Mines Engineer on June 3, 1971. Ever since the date of joining duty as Mines Engineer, Madras Port Trust, he was working in the capacity of Mines Engineer on the pay roll of the Madras Port Trust. The petitioner received a notice on March 26, 1986 stating that his services were not required with effect from June 30, 1986 on the ground that the Port Trust had stopped all the quarry operations at Pallavaram Quarry. The petitioner made representation that he was working as a permanent employee and even if Pallavaram Quarry is closed, he must be absorbed elsewhere in other departments of the Government. The complaint of the petitioner is that other employees who were working under him were absorbed by the respondents, but the petitioner alone was singled out, and was not granted any alternative job. On June 30,1986, the respondents passed an order stating that the petitioner was relieved, from the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC331
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same i.e. P.S.G. & Sons Charities, represented by its Chief Executive. Coimbatore and the respondent is the City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner. Coimbatore. Since common facts are involved and the parties are one and the same in all these writ petitions, by consent of counsel on both sides. I am disposing of all these writ petitions by this common order.2. The prayers in these writ petitions are to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the respondent made 'in assessment in 9029. 9815. 9031. 9814 and 9030 dated 24-4-1992 respectively and quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondents from levying or demanding property tax in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner. Trust used for the PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and PSC Hospitals.3. W.P. No. 13190 of 1992 relates to assessment in...
Tag this Judgment!