Chennai Court December 1997 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.
M. Ganesan and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ328
ORDERV. Rengasamy, J.1. This writ of certiorari has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 599, Housing and Urban Development, dated 27.4.1987 relating to the acquisition of the petitioners' lands.2. The facts averred in the affidavit are as follows: The petitioners who are husband and wife have purchased 8 3/8 cents and 5 1/8 cents respectively in S.No. 63/5D2 in Thopour Village of Madurai South Taluk on 28.10.1985 and the first respondent has issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by G.O.Ms.No. 1159, Housing and Urban Development, dated 4.11.1985 requiring these land and some other lands for the Madurai South Neighbourhood Scheme and Land Development by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There is an Ashram in this property of the petitioners known as 'Ramlingaswami Madam' in which, they are celebrating Thai Poosam Day, Ani Poosam Day and Karthi...
B. Venkatasami Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway Chennai and 3 Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC369
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order in letter No. M/W 277/16/XII dated 4.11.1997 and qaush the same as illegal.2. According to the petitioner, who is a railway civil engineering contractor for a number of years, was granted permission during 1974 to occupy railway land at Arakkonam Railway Junction measuring about 4000 sq.ft as a licensee on a rental basis. The petitioner states that he had executedan agreement accepting the terms and conditions. The petitioner states that he had signed the readymade and cyclostyled agreement and according to him the copy of the said agreement had not been given to him. However, the petitioner admits that a copy of the agreement has been furnished to him on 19.11.1997. The said agreement copy had not been placed before the court, initially. The petitioner states that the agreement is a standard form, which applies to various lease/license to all type o...
John Paulraj A.P. Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ628Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Writ Appeal.3. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated March 2, 1990 made in Writ Petition No. 8227 of 1988 filed by the appellant herein, wherein, a learned single Judge, on a preliminary objection held that no writ will lie against third respondent/Unaided Private School, which is affiliated to the first respondent and thus dismissed the Writ Petition without going into the merits of the case.4. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows:According to the appellant, he was appointed as a Principal in the third respondent school on August 11, 1986 on temporary basis, considering his 12 years' experience as teacher; he was very sincere in discharging his duties; he was working without any blame or blemish on his part; and his service was extended for one year from June 1, 1987 till the end of the academic year by an agreement dated ...
M. Lakshmi Vs. K. Seethapathy, Technician, Baggage and Shipping Plant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC718
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The respondent/husband filed O.P. No. 48 of 1982 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, seeking a decree for divorce under Section 13(l)(i-a) and 13(l)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by Act 68 of 1976. According to the respondent, as stated in the petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 11.2.1976 at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and they had been living together as husband and wife at No. 99 Thyappa Mudali Street, G.T., Madras-1 till 20.3.1978, on which date the wife left the matrimonial home with the intention to desert the husband. A female child was born to the appellant through the respondent on 15.8.1977. Ever since the date of marriage the wife did not want to live with the husband and she frequently went away to her parents' house during the period of her living with him and she treated the husband with contempt and developed a dislike and aversion towards him. The peti...
Chandranathan Vs. Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC716
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both the parties;2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.95 in C.C.No.756 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, wherein, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 100 in default of which, two weeks simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 249 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and with a fine of Rs. 750 in default of which, ten weeks simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was running a factory without proper licence, and therefore, they have committed offences punishable under Section 249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.4. Two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and five documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on beha...
A.M.S. Mohamed Housuf Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by Its Secretary and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ78
E. Padmanaban, J.1. S.A.No. 949 of 1984 has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf Board).2. The Wakf Board instituted a suit O.S.No. 199 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli praying for declaration that the first schedule property belongs to Nagoor Shagul Hameed Darga Pallivasal Wakf and for recovery of possession of second scheduled property, besides for the relief of mesne profits. The second schedule property is a part of first schedule property.3. Originally, the said suit was instituted on 21.6.1979 and numbered as O.S.No. 672 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif court, Tirunelveli, and subsequently transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 28.1.1983, after contest.4. The defendants in the said suit preferred appeal A.S.No. 31 of 1983 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, which allowed the first appea...
K. Lakshmi Vs. K. Seethapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ275
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The respondent husband filed O.P.No. 48 of 1982 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, seeking a decree for divorce under Section s. 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by Act 68 of 1976. According to the respondent, as stated in the petition, the marriage between the- petitioner and the respondent took place on 11.2.1976 at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and they had been living together as husband and wife at No. 99 Thyappa Mudali Street, G.T., Madras-1 till 20.3.1978, on which date the wife left the matrimonial home with the intention to desert the husband. A female child was born to the appellant through the respondent on 15.8.1977. Ever since the date of marriage the wife did not want to live with the husband and she frequently went away to her parents' house during the period of her living with him and she treated the husband with contempt and developed a dislike and aversion towards him. The petiti...
A. Dhanapal Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ663
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate, the 2nd respondent without impleading him as a party at any point of time. We fail to comprehend that in the absence of necessary party ar party likely to be affected, how the quasi-judicial much less judicial authority can act or assume jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.2. learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of any procedure prescribed or any form prescribed the petitioner is expected to only file a complaint. Bereft of all the procedure, on presenting of the petition having grounds of challenge in the petition, issuance of notice to the necessary party is the obligation of the authority to whom the petition is presented. We do not find any force in this ingenuine argument raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. On the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem that no person can be condemned without gr...
V. Sadasivan and 36 Others Vs. Binny Limited Represented by Its Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC1; [1998(79)FLR97]
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Raju, J.1. The above writ petition has been posted before the Division Bench onthe directions of an earlier Division Bench dated 30-4-1997 issued, whiledisposing of Writ Appeal No. 221 of 1997 and C.M.P. Nos. 3782 and 4809 of1997. The said writ appeal itself came to be filed against the order of alearned single Judge dated 21-2-1997 in W.M.P.No. 20305 of 1996 inW.P.No. 11862 of 1996.2. (a). W.P.NO. 11862 of 1996 has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that clause 8 of the Agreement read with the orders of termination dated 31-7-1996 issued by the second respondent to the petitioners are void and illegal being violative of Section 23 of the IndianContract Act, 1872, Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service with all arrears of salary or in the alternative direct the resp...
Kaliya Perumal Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, P.C.R. Unit, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC182
1. Petitioner Kaliya Perumal, in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is seeking the quashing of the F.I.R. registered in crime number 14 of 1996, by the respondent, for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the S.C.,S.T. Act for short, on the complaint given by one Thenmozhi wife of one Haridoss.2. The grounds on which, this application has been filed are two fold:(i) The averments in the F.I.R. would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C.,S.T. Act and mere calling of the caste name by itselfwould not amount to dishonouring the caste to which the complainantbelongs;(ii) Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She married a person byname Haridoss, who belongs to Yadhava Community. Therefore, thecomplainant becomes a member of the Yadhava Community family andthat too, the said husband of the complainant is the relative of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »