Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Thangavel Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ546
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 62 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anna District at Dindigul, convicting the appellant Thangavel for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life on the allegation that on 24-7-1986 the deceased Veeramani, a girl aged about 14 years, who was studying in the High School at Oddanchatram returned to her village Rayagoundanpudhur at 4.45 P.M. by town bus and got down at Rayagoundan Pudurvilakku bus stop along with her schoolmate P.W. 3, and others and that the accused and the deceased Veeramani stopped near Kalikattappu and then the appellant took Veeramani to the eastern side and pushed her down and hit on her head with heavy stone resulting in her instantaneous death. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction need narration. (a) P.W. 1 Shanmughavel is the father of the deceased Veeramani. He is residing in Rayagoundanpudhur village with his family....
Tag this Judgment!Best and Crompton Engineering Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(93)ELT21(Mad)
D. Raju, J.1. The above references have been made under Section 130(1) of Customs Act, 1962, at the instance of the respective applicants-Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras, referring the following question of law for our consideration and decision :'Whether in the facts of circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the 'Out of Customs charge' Order given under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be considered to be not a valid one as held by the Department'.2. So far as R.C. 13 of 1985 is concerned, the applicants appear to have imported 1000 MT of Nickel by the vessel M.V. John which arrived at Madras Port in December, 1979. There appeared to be some disputes in respect of the goods under Open General Licence and the Deputy Collector of Customs who confiscated the goods in adjudication proceedings appears to have allowed clearance on the payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The applicants paid the fine and duty levied on the entire consignment on 7-10-1980. After the pa...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramalingam Vs. N. Thangavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ41
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 369 of 1992, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, is the appellant. Suit filed by the plaintiff is one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove all constructions, pipes and other obstructions in the suit property, and for consequential reliefs.2. The material averments in the plaint are as follows:The schedule property is part of Resurvey No. 342/2-A Item 38, which, according to the plaintiff is his ancestral property. He obtained the same through a final decree passed in that case. He was allotted 40 cents. Out of the 40 cents, portions have been sold, and the remaining portion is described in the plaint. It is his case that the plaintiff is the absolute owner. It is further averred that during the temporary absence of the plaintiff on 5.9.1992, defendant removed the fence of the plaintiff towards western side and occupied portion of his property and put up...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. RaffudIn and ors. Vs. N. Yeswantha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ581
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 308 of 1997 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 193 of 1990 and C.R.P. No. 309 of 1997 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1990. Both these proceedings were clubbed together by the Rent Controller and a common order was pronounced. When appeals were preferred, the appellate authority also disposed of the appeals by a common judgment.2. In both the revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner.3. R.C.O.P. No. 193 of 1990 was filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking permission from Rent Controller for depositing the rent of Rs. 8,180 due to the respondent for the period ending with 31.7.1990 and permit him to continue to deposit future rents.4. Material averments in that petition may be stated ;is follows:There are three respondents. Al1 of them are landlords of the building. They are sons of one late Narahan Rao. Under a lease arrangement dated 22.1 1.1974, petitioner herein took the building on a month...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanathan Vs. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ134
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First respondent in T.R.T. Appeal No. 28 of 1996, on the file of the Revenue Court, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Appellate Authority (Special Deputy Collector), at Thanjavur, is the petitioner herein.2. Petitioner herein filed an application for registering his name as cultivating tenant. The Registering Authority registered his name. An appeal was taken by respondents therein. Along with the appeal, they also moved an application for stay of operation of the order. By the impugned Order, the Appellate Authority stayed the operation. The same is challenged in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that The Appellate Authority has no power to grant stay.3. The only point that requires consideration is, whether the Order called for interference, and, whether the Appellate Authority acted beyond his powers.4. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act provides for a ri...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatachalam and anr. Vs. Sumathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC88
Raju, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28.8.1991 in C.M.A. No. 804 of 1991 whereunder the learned Single Judge while confirming the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Coimbatore dismissing an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the appeal filed in this Court by respondents 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 263 of 1985. The respondents herein filed M.C.O.P. No. 263 of 1985 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the death of Ravi@ Ravichandran, the husband of the first petitioner, father of the second petitioner and the son of petitioners 3 and 4 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal who was said to have died in an accident which took place on 20.4.1985 at about 12.30 p.m. when he was riding in his bicycle said to have been caused by the bus bearing regis...
Tag this Judgment!Komalam K. Nair and Others Vs. Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ764; AIR1997Mad271
1. These four appeals arise out of the claims for compensation in respect of two dead persons in the motor accident dated 22-6-I98I involving the Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation bus bearing TMN 8192 and the Ambassadar car bearing No. TMV 6260, near the Meenambakkam Air-Port. In the accident, the driver of the car Karunakaran and the passenger who engaged the car by name Basuvaraj died on the spot.2. M.O.P. No. 397 of 1981 was filed by the wife of the driver of the car by name Karunakaran, claiming compensation of Rs. 78,000/-.3. M.O.P. No. 505 of 1981 was filed by the wife and children of the passenger travelled in the car, that is, Basuvaraj, claiming compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs.4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu granted Rs. 17,500/- as compensation for the death of the driver Karunakaran and Rs. 4,65,000/- for the death of the passenger Basuvaraj. The Tribunal has also found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car and fixed it ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mooka Velar Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ28
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.No. 810 of 1981 dated 23.1.1992 dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment in O.S.No. 81 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. The short facts are, respondents 2 to 4 / defendants 2 to 4 filed O.S.No. 445 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/plaintiff from interfering with their management of the suit temple. That suit was dismissed on 31.3.1975. Defendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.No. 135 of 1975 in the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. They filed I.A.No. 317 of 1975 in that appeal for amendment of the plaint for adding the relief of declaration that they are joint trustees and are in joint possession. That application was allowed and the appeal was also allowed thereby decreeing the suit a...
Tag this Judgment!Palanisami Pillai Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ50
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1992 of Bellie, J., made in A.S.No. 555 of 1982 on the file of this Court, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1981 made in O.S.No. 408 of 1976 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. The appellant filed O.S.No. 408 of 1976 to set aside the Order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration Department), Madras i.e., the first respondent herein, passed in A.P.No. 35 of 1974 dated 1.11.1975, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Administration Department), Madurai i.e., the 2nd respondent herein made in O.A.No. 57 of 1967 dated 21.1.1912 and as consequential relief of a permanent injunction restraining the Department from interfering with the management, administration and control of Sonaichamy Koil, which according to the appellant, is a private temple situated at Melaveli Street, Madurai Town. The case of the appellant as per the p...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Kavitha and Another Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC173
ORDER1. In W.P.No. 11967 of 1995 and the petitioner, who was not successful and could not secure admission in the first Year M.B.B.S. Course under Special Category 15 for the academic year 1995-96 has filed the present Writ Petition, seeking for the issue of a Writ of Madamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner herein in the first year M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu under the special category 15 for the academic year 1995-96.2. According to the petitioner, he was born out of inter- caste marriage. The petitioner's father belong to Pallan Community (SC) and mother belong to Backward Class Community. The petitioner sought for admission under the special category of seats reserved for the children born out of inter-caste marriage. According to the petitioner, the candidates who have secured marks less than the petitioner had been admitted to the first year M.B.B.S. Course and his non-selection is illegal. The petitioner contends t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »