Chennai Court January 1999 Judgments
M.P.M. Hameed Ibrahim and One Another Vs. V.S. Bagirathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC396
ORDER1. The first respondent in this revision is the landlord/petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.704 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (14th Small Causes Court) Madras. The second respondent in this revision is the first respondent/tenant in the above referred to proceedings. The first petitioner in this revision was arrayed in that proceedings as the 2nd respondent /unauthorised sub-tenant under the first respondent. On the first respondent's counter in that proceedings, the 2nd petitioner herein also came to be impleaded as the 3rd respondent, in the category of an unauthorised sub-tenant under the 1st respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent herein. Eviction of the respondents in the rent control petition was sought for on two grounds namely, owner's occupation of a non-residential building falling under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and sub-letting falling under section 10(3)(a)(ii...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd,. Owners of Somasundaram Super Spi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC364; (2000)ILLJ340Mad
ORDER1. Since the issues in all these writ petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. In W.P.NO. 1979 of 1988, the petitioner, namely, Somasundaram Corporation (Private Limited), owners of Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills are challenging the constitutional validity of the Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act (The Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 1986) as invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.3. East Ramnad District National Textile Workers Union (INTUC) have filed Writ Petition No. 13510 of 1994 challenging lay off Notice dated 1.6.1994 and the closure order dated 15.7.1994 parsed by the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation, Coimbatore-18.4. Ramanathapuram District Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam has filed Writ Petition No. 20925 of 1994 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) Department dated 14.10.1993 quash the same and f...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Lakshmi Narayanan (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas87(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. The fourth defendant is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :The first defendant applied for an overdraft facility for Rs. 30,000 as working capital. The plaintiff granted it on June 5, 1973, against the pledge of the first defendant's electronic equipment, refrigerators and electrical goods and on the personal guarantee for the repayment given by defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The first defendant was irregular in repayment of the amount. So, the plaintiff brought the properties to sale. The first defendant filed O. S. No. 8517 of 1977 and obtained an order of interim injunction, but, it was vacated later. As on October 31, 1977, a sum of Rs. 31,341.10 is due by the first defendant to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff exercised its right and sold the damaged goods for Rs. 20,710.30 and the defective goods for Rs. 2,568. After giving credit to this amount, the first defendant is due and liable as on March 5, 1979, in a sum of Rs. 10,333.80. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Karur Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad250
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of 4th respondent RC. No. 1057/ 98/PDS dated 26-11-98, quash the same, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. By virtue of the impugned Order, 4th respondent transferred ten ration shops under Public Distribution System run by petitioner-Management to 7th respondent herein. The same is challenged on the ground that no prior notice was given either to the Management or to the employees of the ration shops. Even though it is said that there are irregularities in the impugned Order, on inspection, no irregularities were found. It is said that the Order refers to certain complaints about which petitioner was not given notice. Various other reasons are also mentioned in the Order, which are not true to facts.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by 4th respondent, it is said that the impugned Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Central Prov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1494Mad; (1999)IIMLJ57
T. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent culminating in the impugned order No. SDC/PC/6/Accounts/89(i), dated January 29, 1990, and quash the same.2. The first petitioner-company is a public limited company represented by its Director, the second petitioner herein. It was carrying on business in textiles in six units situated at Kanpur, Naini, Mannath Bhaiyan and Rae Bareli in the State of Uttar Pradesh, at Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan and in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The case of the petitioners is that during the period 1974 to 1978, the textile industry suffered enormous losses which were due to the circumstances beyond control, as a result of which, the first petitioner-company's liquidity was adversely affected and it had to borrow large sums of money for payment of wages to the workers and even the Receiver appointed by the Collector could not pay wages of the workers at Kanpur uni...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajendiran and Others Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC68; (1999)IIMLJ380
ORDER1. All the Writ Petitioners seek similar relief i.e., to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings of first respondent made in Na.Ka.6788/Ku.Visa dated 1.12.1998 and quash the same in so far as petitioners are concerned and pass such further orders. 2. All these petitioners are members of 2A 98 Vadamattam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and they got elected to the Board of Directors on 30.10.1996. All these petitioners have obtained loan from Society on various dates. 3. First respondent issued notice on 23.10.1998 asking them to show cause why they should not be disqualified under Section 34(6) of Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act as there is default in making payment of instalments of loan secured from Society. Petitioners submitted their representation stating that the dues to loan were already settled long before show cause notice and Registrar has no cause o...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(106)ELT292(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of the second respondent within the time fixed by this court. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the fine as well as the penalty are paid and the goods are to be taken delivery by the petitioner, then the petitioner's request for the expert opinion cannot be complied with. As the petitioner has requested the original authority to seek for the expert opinion in case of doubt and the original authority having failed to consider this aspect, now the petitioner seeks an early disposal of the appeal after getting the expert opinion.2. I perused the order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 2-7-1998 wherein the Appellate Tribunal has noticed that this is not a fit case for granting early hearing especially when the appeals of more than ten years are ...
Tag this Judgment!Wockhardt Limited Vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ467
C. Shivappa, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated 2.6.1998, passed on O.A.Nos.182 and 183 of 1998 on the Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, vacating the ex parte interim injunction granted on 16.4.1998.2. Original Application No. 182 of 1998 was filed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and others from use or otherwise dealing with the pharmaceutical preparations and substances under the trade mark 'SPASMO-FLEXON'. O.A.No. 183 of 1998 was for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and others from passing-off the goods under the trade-mark 'SPASMO-FLEXON', on the ground that the same is identical or deceptively/ phonetically similar to the appellant's trade-mark 'SPASMO-PROXYVON'3. In the suit, the trial Judge by an order dated 16.4.1998 granted ad-interim injunction ex parte. Against the said order, the respondent herein filed Applications No. 1650 to 1654 of 1998 to vacate the ex parte order passed on O.A.N...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraman Vs. Lalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ561
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. No. 101 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Kancheepuram. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit, claiming a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of damages, from the petitioner and other persons. The petitioner (3rd defendant) and the 4th defendant filed unnumbered I.A. SR. No. 6199 of 1998 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to stay all further proceedings in the case till the final disposal of C.A. No. 467 of 1 992 on the file of this Court. The respondents opposed the application and after hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petition and aggrieved against this, the petitioner (3rd defendant), has filed the present revision.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below erred in dismissing the petition under Section 10 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue involved in the suit as well as in the criminal appeal is one and the same and the decision in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Xavier Fernado Vs. Dhanaraj Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ645
sBakthavatsalu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The suit property originally stood in the name of Rathina Sironmani Ammal from whom one Guruvammal had purchased the land under oral sale. The said Guruvammal and her son Rathinam were enjoying the land as owners thereof by paying property tax. Guruvammal during her lifetime relinquished her right is suit property in favour of her son Rathinam, who sold the property to one Subbarayulu under sale deed dated 27.12.1963 from whom the plaintiff purchased. Rathina Siromani died in the Year 1950. Guruvammal and her son were in enjoyment of the property from 1949 onwards. Therefore, the plaintiff and his predecessor in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for more than 30 years and thus, the plaintiff has prescribed title to the property and the plaintiff has got possessory title to the suit property. The defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »