Chennai Court January 1998 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.
S. Vimala Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ682
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of declaration declaring the order of preference referred under Clause 3.5 (viii) if the prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent for the admission of candidates in Professional courses (Medical/Dental/Paramedical) 1997-98 as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to treat candidates born of intercaste marriage as a single homogenous class and therefrom select candidates purely based on their merits without giving any preference as set out in clause 3.5 (viii) of the prospectus.2. The petitioner herein is a daughter of one Sambamoorthy, who belongs to Vanniar community. It is said that the said community is notified as Most Backward community by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Her mother is a converted Christian Adi Dravida, which is classified as Scheduled Cast community. They got married in 1977. The petitioner wrote the +2 examinations in the year 1996 and also appeared for the improvement exa...
B. Sathishkumar Vs. Director of Medical Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ653
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents to issue Diploma in Pharmacy Certificate and Provisional Certificate to the petitioner, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. Petitioner joined in Diploma in Pharmacy course in 2nd respondent-college during the Academic year 1992-93. The duration of the course is two years. It is said that if a student had passed +2 and joined in the Diploma in Pharmacy course, there are certain exemptions from attending the classes and appearing in the examination in respect of certain subjects in the First year. Students who have taken science subject in their +2 examination were exempted from attending the classes and appearing in the examination in respect of all the subjects except Anatomy, Physiology and Health Education. In the case of students who took vocational course in +...
Minor Ilavarasi Nagarani Sujatha, Represented by Her Father and Natura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ204
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to select the petitioner as a S.T. candidate in the M.B.B.S. course for the year 1997-98 or subsequent years in any one of the Government Medical College.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which is sworn to by the father of the petitioner who is a minor, it is stated that the petitioner passed her +2 examination and obtained very high marks. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Kadar Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of India. The petitioner underwent the entrance examination conducted by the Anna University for professional courses and secured 80% in entrance examination and in aggregate she secured 258 out of 300 marks. It is her case that on the basis of marks obtained and also being a member of Scheduled Tribe Community she is entitled to get selection to the M.B.B.S. cours...
M. Viswanathan Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ690
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent dated 9.10.1997 in his proceedings Na. Ka. c3/100521, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to renew the 'C' Form licence of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a lessee of a property, wherein he is conduct a cinema theatre by name 'Muthiah Talkies' at Cuddalore. It is his case that he was exhibiting cinematography exhibition in the said theatre without any break and he has obtained the licence, the period of last licence was expired on 17.9.1991. Before the expiry of licence, he applied for renewal of the 'C' Form licence to the respondent with all necessary certificates. But no order has been passed by the respondent on the application for renewal of C form licence not 'E' permit has been granted pending disposal of the above application. The petitioner was therefore, compelled to move this Court in W.P. No. 15076 of 1991. As per order...
Jayaverchand Vs. Balan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ701
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlord in R. CO.P. No. 2857 of 1990, on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner herein filed R. CO.P. No. 2857 of 1990 against the respondent for eviction. An ex parte order was passed on 3.5.1991. The matter came up for first hearing on 20.12.1990. Since service could not be completed, it was adjourned, and the Rent Controller ordered fresh notice. Rent Controller also ordered substituted service by publication, returnable by 30.4.1991 On 30.4.1991, respondent was called. Since he was absent, he was set ex parte, and the matter was posted to 3.5.1991 for ex parte evidence. On 3.5.1991, evidence was taken and an order of eviction was passed.3. Alleging that he came to know about the ex parte order after a long time, respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, as M.P. No. 110 of 1992. He did not file any application to condone de-lay even though the Rules provide that such application...
B. Saraswathi and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ21
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these writ petitions facts are similar and the respondents are also same. The petitioners in all these cases are trespassers of the Government land, and they claim that they have put up constructions and have also obtained electricity connection. It is also their case that they are paying property tax. In all these cases, respective petitioners admit that they came into occupation of poromboke land, not on the basis of any consent by the Government. Their case is that on 23.10.1997, the respondents-officers sought surrender of possession, which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions. The relief sought for in all these writ petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any action for dispossessing the petitioners from the respective premises, without following the procedures laid down under the Land Encroachment Act. Even though there are number of writ petitions, I do not want to extract the facts separately i...
Nagalakshmi Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Anna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC170
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.NO. 3534 of 1989, dated 31.8.1994. The writ petition relates to the action of the respondents in withdrawing the concessional rate of tariff on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for availing the concessional ratebecause it is a branch unit of the appellant unit elsewhere. According to the petitioners, they established a unit at Hosur in or about April 1961, which was given the benefit of concessional tariff by the Court. The Board by letter dated 9.8.1995, demanded payment of Rs. 2,36,767-83 on the ground that the petitioners' unit at Hosur is nothing but a branch unit and therefore, they are not eligible for the grant of concession. Challenging this demand, it is contended that it is a new industrial undertaking and not a branch unit; that the action is vitiated by principles of natural justice; that the dispute as to whether the Unit at Hosur is a branch unit or a new industrial underta...
P. Srinivasan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Cum-secretary, Regio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC732
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore (North), Coimbatore, in R.No.23191/U1/95 dated 24.8.1995 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's application filed on 23.7.1995, for the grant of new public carrier permit in respect of the petitioner's vehicle TNC 5337, forthwith.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle referred to above, which was originally covered by a public carrier permit valid upto 15.6.1989. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 12.1.1988 Since the vehicle was an old one, petitioner wanted to repair the vehicle for getting renewal of the Fitness Certificate. With that intention he remitted the tax ...
The South India Corporation Agencies Limited, Rep. by Its Secretary 10 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC674; (1998)IMLJ685
ORDER1. The tenant who aggrieved against the orders of the authorities below, fixing the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month has filed the above revision. 2. The landlords/petitioners filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.360 of 1985 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended, claiming rent at Rs. 2,307 per month. The same was resisted by the petitioner/tenant stating that the building in question would fetch only a rent of Rs. 633 per month. The learned Rent Controller in her order dated 26.4.1989 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month. To fix the said rent, the Rent Controller found that the age of the building is 76 on the date of filing R.C.O.P., and adopted cost of construction as per the P.W.D. rate, and fixed the basic amenities at 5%. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.NO. 411 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras/Appel...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ezhumeswaramudayar Temple
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR521(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. This tax case (revision) is directed against the order dated October 28, 1993, of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 (for short 'the Tribunal'), and made in A.T.A. No. 84 of 1991, relatable to the assessment year 1990-91 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').2. The assessee is none else than A/M. Ezhumeswaramudayar Temple, Ayakkaranbulam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Mannargudi Circle. The assessee, it appears, had been subjected to payment of tax under the Act on a net income of Rs. 26,496 for the assessment year 1990-91.3. The aggrieved assessee-temple filed an appeal A.P. No. 13 of 1991, before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Thanjavur, who in turn, of course, after taking into consideration the relevant materials available on record, confirmed the order of assessment and dismissed the appeal by his order dated April 16, 1991.4. The aggrieved assessee-temple agitated the matter fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »