Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments
Singaravelu Mudaliar and 5 ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ601
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam are the appellants.2. The sole respondent herein filed the above suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants interfering with her possession on the following allegations. The suit property in the plaint originally belonged to one Venkatammal. About 30 years plaintiff purchased the property on the basis of an oral sale and came into possession.3. The plaintiff has further stated that from the date of the sale, the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession and effected improvements in the property worth more than Rs. 15,000 and her possession is notorious, exclusive, and open. It is further stated that in the year 1962, the plaintiff took electrical connection to the building and electrical charges are also being paid by her. The plaintiff is doing automobile business and her correspondence all along is in the address of the plaint schedule property. The p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Prasad Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ280
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings of G.O. (3D) No. 204 Industries (MME-1) Department, dated 22.9.1995 of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider all the applications together for the grant of river sand quarry lease in Ramanjeri Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Chengai-MGR District measuring to an extent of 10.30.0 hect-ares in Survey No. 1412.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affida-vit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner has applied for mining lease for quarrying river sand in Ramanjeri Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Chengai-MGR District over an extent of 56.35 hectares in Survey No. 1412. The said application fee for the grant of lease was made on 29.7.1995 to the Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Madras-9. The necessary application fee of Rs. 1.500 has also been duly remitt...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Rajaram Income-tax Officer Vs. M.A. Jaffar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR941(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of together since the parties are the same and the point is common. Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 1987 is directed against the order of acquittal dated March 31, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in C.C. No. 54 of 1985. The other appeal in C.A. No. 831 of 1987 is directed as against the order of acquittal passed by the very same Magistrate in C.C. No. 53 of 1985 on the very same date.2. The material averments in both the complaints in these two appeals arising out of these two cases in C.C. No. 54 of 1985 and 53 of 1985 are as follows :The accused is dealing in the purchase and sale of iron and steel materials and he is assessed to income-tax. In the normal course of business transaction, the accused purchased iron and steel materials from Iron and Steel Traders, 77, Sembudoss Street, Madras - 600 001. Enquiry and investigation made in the case of the above accused revealed that the under-mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited Vs. K.P. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC200; (1997)IILLJ166Mad
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated October 29, 1991 in I.A. No. 418 of 1991 in O.S. No. 474 of 1991 on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli and confirmed by Judgment and decree dated February 11, 1993 made in CMA. No. 11 of 1992 on the file of the I Addl,. Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The respondent herein who was working as Junior Tradesman in the Re-Conditioning Unit at Central Workshop at Kotapattu. Tiruchirapalli was transferred vide order dated February 18, 1991 to Pondicherry. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 474 of 1991 in the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for a declaration for the transfer proceedings dated February 18, 1991 as arbitrary, against the principles of Natural Justice, malas fide, null and void and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from in any way giving effect to the said proceedings in any manner whatsoever. 3. The respondent also filed I.A....
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Mohideen Vs. Muthukumara thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC369; (1998)IMLJ144
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The second plaintiff in O.S.No. 552 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif court, Pattukottai is the appellant herein. The second respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration of his title and for consequential injunction restraining the appellant herein as well as the second respondent herein, from interfering with their peaceful possession. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 21.3.1991 has dismissed the suit. As against this decree, the appellant as well as the second respondent herein filed the appeal in A.S.No. 41 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-court, Pattukottai. The Lower Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant herein. Before the Lower appellate court the only issue argued seems to be with regard to the genuineness of the will Ex.B.4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the app...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kunchithapatham Vs. Ramamoorthy Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ492
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Srinivasan for petitioner and Mr. T. Susindran for respondent.2. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Special Revenue, Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam dated 11.2.1995 passed in P. No. 76 of 1994 on his file. The Special Revenue Divisional Officer without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (25 of 1955) and under Rule 3(vii) of the Rules, passed the order impugned in this revision.3. I have gone through the order, which is in the form of a cyclostyled order. The order passed would only reveal the total non-application of mind on the part of the Special Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Court. He is not justified in passing such an order arbitrarily without considering the case of the respective parties in its proper perspective. It is contended by Mr. R. Srinivasan, that the court below has lost sight of the fact that the landlord has claimed the qu...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Deluxe Roadlines and anr. Vs. Jainullabudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ503
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenants in R.C.O.R No. 25 of 1992, on the file of District Munsif s Court, Erode - Rent Controller, are the revision petitioners.2. Landlord who is the sole respondent in this revision sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the building is required for their own occupation, partly for residential and partly for non-residential purpose. It is the case of the landlord that he has no other building of his own for the purpose of doing business and also to reside, and it is a residential building that has been taken on rent by these revision petitioners, for using the same for non-residential purpose.3. The main ground in the petition that was raised by the revision petitioners was that the petitioners cannot seek eviction of the building for residential as well as non-residential purpose, when the letting was for non-residential purpose alone. They also disputed that the building is a residential building.4. The Rent Controller believed the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Boston and Others Vs. S.A. Akbar and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad357; (1998)IMLJ270
ORDER1. All these revisions are by the respective tenants in the various rent control petitions filed by the respective landlords. Even though all the Rent Control Petitions were separately tried, since the matter relates to portions of the same building, and more or less a common defence was also taken by the revision petitioners, though separate orders have been passed by the Rent Controlleras well as the Appellate Authority, when the matter came before this Court, in these Revisions, a common argument was taken by all the revision petitioners, which is agcncral defence taken in all these cases. Since all the matters were heard together, I intend to dispose of the same by this common order, though facts relating to various Revisions are separately extracted.2. C.K.P. No. 450 of 1997 :In this case, the landlord is one S.A. Akbar, who is the absolute owner of shop No. 6 in the ground floor of premises No. 5, Purusawalkam High Road. Vepery, Madras-7. The agreed rent is Rs. 600/-. and it...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V. Ramalakshmi and 2 ors. Vs. the Director of Medical Education an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC170
ORDERGovindarajan, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners who are working in the Government Hospitals applied for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for 1997-1998. Their applications were not considered on the basis that some disciplinary proceedings against them either contemplated or pending on the date of making their application. On the basis of para 4 in Clause VI of the prospectus for the year 1997-1998 regarding admission to Post-graduate Diploma/Degree/MDS Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical/ Dental Colleges. The said clause reads as follows:-'4. 'Service candidates should send their applications through proper channel with forwarding authority's remarks, if any disciplinary proceedings are pending against them, service candidates should not send the application. This is applicable to Tamil Nadu services, local body/public Sector of Tamil Nadu or Central Government, Defence Services candidates etc., forwarding officers need not forward the applications.'Th...
Tag this Judgment!Periyar Pallivasal Rep. by Its Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC576
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioner is governed by the scheme framed in O.S.No. 4 of 1936, Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. The petitioner filed an application E.A.No. 256 of 1995 in O.S.No. 4 of 1936 before the lower court under Section 151, 152 and 153 of Civil Procedure Code, to modify some of the clauses in the scheme. The lower court dismissed the said application on the ground that the application is not maintainable and the petitioner has to file a separate suit under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of the scheme decree. As against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the reliefs ought for by the petitioner are not for modification of the scheme, but sought for certain directions for the management of the Trust in accordance with the resolutions passed by the Administrative Committee and as such the petitioner filed before the lower court is maintainable, under Section 34 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »