Chennai Court October 1999 Judgments
M. Ramalinga thevar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Joint Secretary, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC675
ORDER1. The writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated on behalf of the third respondent by respondents 1 and 2. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the appellant is that the award came to be passed more than two years after the date of 6 declaration and therefore vitiated. 3. The relevant dates are as follows: Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act - 27.2.1991. Declaration under section 6 of the Act - 10.4.1992 and Section 11 award -16.9.1994. 4. There is absolutely no doubt that the award was passed more than two years after 6 declaration. However, there were proceedings initiated by the appellant in W.P.No.9715 of 1991 questioning the Notification under section 4(1) dated 27.2.1991. The writ petition was admitted on 16.7.1991 and inW.M.P.No.14764 of 1991 an interim stay of dispossession was granted by this Court and the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Janardhana Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas1(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-mills herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G. O. Ms. No. 304, dated October 12, 1990, issued by the first respondent and the consequential G. 0. Ms. No. 97, dated February 25, 1991, and other consequential orders passed pursuant to the above proceedings including the order dated September 1, 1994, and September 21, 1994, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Singanallur Assistant Circle, Coimbatore, in Ref. No. 648/ 91A3 and Ref. No. 1657/87-A3, respectively in so far as they relate to conditions made in clause 5 regarding payment schedule of deferred sales tax for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, and clauses 5 and 7 thereofrelating to the appointment of a nominee director to be nominated by the third respondent herein to be a director on the board of management of the first petitioner to the extent they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Jothi Animal and ors. Vs. Kulandai Vadivel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ35
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenants/petitioners who suffered an order of eviction before the appellate authority have filed the above revision.2. The respondents/landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 49 of 1984 for eviction of the premises in question against the petitioners/tenants on the file of the learned Rent Controller/ Tiruchirapalli under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Since, before this Court, arguments were made only with respect to the correctness of the order passed on the basis of the requirement of the premises in question for the additional accommodation, I am not dealing with the other issue.3. According to the respondents, the respondents in the R.C.O.P. is in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing door No. 18-C, which is a portion of the entire building bearing door No. 18, and the petitioners herein/tenant in the R.C.O.P. has been in possession and en...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Multanmul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas343(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. The plaintiff, who lost the case before the lower appellate court, is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 27,769.18. The suit was resisted by the defendant and the trial court, namely, the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, after trial, decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal to the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by his judgment dated September 14, 1983, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal.2. It is not necessary for the purpose of the case to set out elaborately the facts, of this case. It is admitted case of the parties that the defendant was the authorised appraiser of the plaintiff-bank. During the year 1976, one Mohanlal approached the plaintiff-bank for a loan pledging certain jewels with a view to obtain credit facilities. He pledged jewels on May 6...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian N. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ913Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, directing the respondents to call for the records relevant to the order in Na. Ka. No. 18981/A-6/89 dated March 13, 1990 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential, monetary and other benefits.2. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by the petitioner, it comes to be known that the petitioner got appointed as Noon Meal Scheme Organiser on February 7, 1983 in the school feeding Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Melpennathur, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District; that on July 13, 1989, he was placed under suspension on the allegation of misbehaviour exhibited with his superiors; that there was also a charge of non-supply of chappals to th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2410
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This order will govern HCP Nos. 1198/99 and 1201/99. The controversy as well as the facts involved are common in both the petitions.2. While in HCP. No. 1198 of 1999 which is filed by one Abdul Rahman, the detenu is Noorudeen, in HCP. No. 1201 of 1999 which is filed by the same petitioner Abdul Rahman, the name of the detenu is Ibrahim, S/o Mohammed Ali, Both these persons face prosecution for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 246 of 1998 registered by J2, Mathichiyam Police Station, Madurai. We would proceed on the facts applicable to Noorudeen. Needless to mention that they are common in the case of the other detenu Ibrahim also, the only difference being the date of detention order. It is a common ground that Noorudeen was detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by an order passed by the Police Commissioner, Madurai dated 25-5-1998, while the detenu Ibrahim was detained by an order dated 8-5-199...
Tag this Judgment!N. Periasamy Alias Koothanar and ors. Vs. the Sub-collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ227
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. All the above writ petitions have been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, forbearing the respondents and their subordinate officials from in any manner evicting the petitioners from the properties mentioned in the respective petitions. All located at Trichy Main Road, Selvarajapuram, Chinthamani Pudur Post, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District or demolishing the said buildings except under due process of law and to pass such other appropriate orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents without serving the necessarynotices nor following the procedures, demolished some houses adjacent to the properties concerned with the above writ petitions on 17-9-1992 and when they attempted to lay hands on these houses, wherein the petitioners are either residing or have set up their trade or business, apprehe...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector, Pudukottai, and Another Vs. Smt. Neela Bai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1636; 2000(1)CTC10; (2000)ILLJ1362Mad; (2000)1MLJ526
ORDERJudgment pronounced by R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Government has come up with this appeal against the award of the tribunal by which a sum of Rs.3,53,400 has been awarded as compensation to the claimants who are the widow and children of the deceased being an employee of the Government and who was travelling in the jeep which wasdriven by the employee of the Government, that jeep having met with an accident on 31.1.1994. The deceased Anandaraj died as a consequence. The claimants before the tribunal were the widow and children of the deceased Anandaraj. 2. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,53,400 which, in our opinion is very conservative award. Admittedly, the deceased had been employed as an Assistant in the Forest Department and was drawing a salary of Rs.3685 on the date of the accident i.e., on 31.1.1994. The report of the pay commission has been published and it has recommended for the said post salary of about of Rs.5000. At the time of the accident, the pay co...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC598; 2000(1)MLJ251
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 9.4.1997, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited represented by its Secretary has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The brass Artware and Handicrafts Unit at Madurai is managed by the second petitioner herein. The products are manufactured by the piece rate earners who come over to the work shed to whom the raw materials and other facilities are provided who according to their ability and the design given would manufacture the handicrafts and earn the payment for the same and leave the premises. There is no compulsion that they shall not work anywhere not it is mandatory that they shall come and work exclusively for petitioners. It is purely a temporary arrangement between the persons who could turn out the handicrafts from raw materials by utilising the facilities provided by the second petitioner. They used to be called as piece rate workers whose ...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector and anr. Vs. Tmt. Neela Bai and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC418
ORDER1. The Government has come up with this appeal against the award of the Tribunal by which a sum of Rs. 3,53,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants who are the widow and children of the deceased being an employee of the Government and who was travelling in the jeep which was driven by the employee of the Government, that jeep haying met with an accident on 31.1.1994. The deceased Anandaraj died as a consequence. The claimants before the Tribunal were the widow and children of the deceased Anandaraj.2. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,53,400/- which, in our opinion is very conservative award. Admittedly, the deceased had been employed as an Assistant in the Forest Department and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,685/- on the date of the accident i.e., on 31.1.1994. The report of the Pay Commission has been published and it was recommended for the said post salary of about of Rs. 5,000/-. At the time of the accident, the Pay Commission which had been consti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »