Chennai Court March 1999 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.
Ramakrishna Mission Ashram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad355
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Very same petitioner came to this Court on earlier occasions in W.P. No. 10729 of 1998 and also in W.P. No.70 of 1999.2. Petitioner is a branch of Ramakrishna Mission with its Headquarters at Belur Math, Howrah District, West Bengal. Petitioner established an English Medium school known as 'Ramkrishna Mission English Medium School from L.K. G to V standard, in the year 1977. The school is functioning in the premises belonging to petitioner at Door No. 14, Griffith Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Petitioner had also established and was administering Ramakrishna Mission Higher Secondary School in Burkit Road, known as South School and Ramkrishna Mission Higher Secondary School in Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, known as North School. Both the premises used for South and North Schools belong to petitioner which comprises of lands measuring about 40 and 79 grounds respectively with sufficient buildings and other infrastructural facilities.3. Students strength in the north and s...
Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ411Mad; (1999)IIMLJ257
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J. 1. W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated November 3, 1989 made by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 122 of 1986.2. W.P. No. 18151 of 1991 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated November 3, 1989 made in I.D. No. 122 of 1986 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore-first respondent herein and quash the same in so far as it denies the petitioner the back wages for the period namely from the date of dismissal on April 27, 1985 to the date of award November 3, 1989 and direct the second respondent to pay the backwages for the abovesaid period.3. As the facts in both the writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner -management in W.P. No. 6687 of 1990 has argued that during February, 1983 the second respondent-workman was posted in the night shift and ...
D. Jothi Vs. K.R. Kandasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ292
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by third party against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in LA. 271 of 1998 in O.S. 77 of 1991.2. Material facts which compelled petitioner to come to this Court could be summarised thus: O.S. 51 of 1984, which is subsequently renumbered as O.S. 77 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Court was a representative suit. Sixth respondent in the suit was one Ponnuswamy Mudaliar. Suit filed by plaintiffs was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men and relatives from interfering with plaintiffs' right to administer the Vadapura Sangunathar Samudhayam and manage the properties of the Vadapuram Sengunathar Samudhayam described in the schedule of properties.3. Written statement was filed by 1st defendant and finally on 27-11-1992, suit was decreed.4. Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A. 234 of 1984 for grant of interim injunction rest...
S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar and anr. Vs. TuticorIn Small Scale Salt Manufact ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ343
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No. 61 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin. The suit was decreed for recovery of money. The plaintiff filed E.P.No., 55 of 1989 to execute the decree in order to recover the decree amount. In the execution proceedings, the property of the petitioners was brought to sale. In the court auction the property fetched the highest bid of Rs. 1,50,000 and the successful bidder also deposited the entire sale consideration. The judgment-debtors filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on various grounds. The judgment-debtors filed an application E.A.No. 1222 of 1991 to dispense with the furnishing of security. The said petition was dismissed by the executing court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.2. The revision petition was heard by Thanikkachalam, J. (as he then was). Before the learned Judge a contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the ...
Management of Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. S. Ganesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ418Mad
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No. 138 of 1987, dated August 31, 1990.2. The first respondent is an employee of the writ-petitioner. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The first respondent was employed as an operator of the General Stores Section and on October 10, 1981 a chargesheet was issued to him wherein it was alleged as follows:- A. 'That on October 6, 1981, while Sri Ganesan was on duty, he was found to be drunk, and was threatening the co-workers inside the factory with a knife. B. That on October 6, 1981, at about 2 P.M., he threatened Sri M. Joseph, Check No. 3227. C. That on October 6, 1981, After 2.30 P.M., he abused Sri Anandan, Card No. 986 using filthy language and also threatened by saying. Vernacular matter Omitted D. That at about 2.30 P.M. on October 6, 1981 when Sri Venkateswaran, senior store keeper was standing near the railing in the traffic s...
Hameed Ghosh Beevi and Another Vs. Abdul Hayoom and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC481
ORDER1. The second appeals arise out of two suits filed by the same parties before the District Munsif, Sirkali. O.S.No. 371 of 1984 was filed on 20.11.1984 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 30.7.1984 was void and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents herein from registering the same. O.S.No. 24 of 1985 was also filed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 30.7.1984 was void and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondent from registering the same. The first plaintiff in O.S.No. 371 of 1984 is the second plaintiff in O.S.No. 24 of 85. The first defendant in O.S.No. 371 of 1984 is the sole defendant in O.S.No. 371 of 1985. The Sub-Registrar is a party only in O.S.No. 371 of 1984. For the sakeof convenience the parties will be referred to by their ranks in O.S.No. 371 of 1984. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. They ate respectively the widow and daughter of one Sultan Maraccair. According to them they became entitle...
S. Sannasi, and Two Others Vs. the District Collector, Pudukkottai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC293
ORDER1. Since the issue in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1978), the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.2. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8360 of 1997 is briefly stated hereunder: The first petitioner Sannasi is the owner of an extent of 0.39.0 Ars in S.No. 261/2 in Kodikulam village, the second petitioner Chinnappa Pathar is owning an extent of 0.48.0 Are in S.No. 257/3 and the third petitioner Velu Pathar is owning an extent of 0.36.5 Ars in S.No. 2575/5 in the said village. The first petitioner belongs to Harijan community. Originally lands measuring an extent of 0.96 cents in original S.No. 261 of Kodikulam village was assigned in favour of his father by the Block Development Officer under the provisions of...
K.A. Balasubramania Iyer Vs. Lakshminarayana Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ205
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. First defendant who lost his case in both the courts below is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:Shri Vardharaja Perumal Temple at Nanjai Kolanalli village was constructed by general public to be maintained by them and daily poojas and festivals are done under their management. Three distinct families were nominated (to perform daily poojas and festivals. Thirumalayyan, Sennayyan and Guruvayyan belonged to one such archaka family. Kumarayyan belonged to another archaka family. Vengayyan, Guruvayyan and Krishnayyan represented the third family. Kumarayyan was having half share and the other two branches had each 1/4 share. The Maharaja of Mysore endowed and granted dry agricultural lands situated in punjai Kolanallai village in the name of Shri Varadharaja Perumal temple. In proportion to their share to the office of archakaship, Thirumalayyan was holding and enjoying 16 acres of inam lands which are the suit properties. Kumarayyan was enjoyi...
V.N. Sudanandan Vs. Dr. Chitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ318
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.7.1997 made in I.A.No. 1118 of 1996 in guardian O.P.No. 41 of 1996 by the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai.2. The petitioner in the main guardian O.P is the wife and the respondent therein is the husband. The main guardian O.P. has been filed by the wife under Sections7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking to appoint her as the guardian of her minor son Gowtham, born through the respondent therein and to direct the respondent therein to handover the custody of the child with the petitioner.3. During the pendency of the said Guardian O.P the respondents/husband filed I.A.No. 1118 of 1996. Seeking dismissal of the main guardian O.P. filed by the petitioner/wife in G.O.P.No. 41 of 1996, since it has been filed abusing the process of the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai, without jurisdiction.4. It is only against the fair and decretal order passed by the Court o...
K. Subramaniam Naidu Vs. T.N. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC529; (1999)IIMLJ548
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,320 towards principal and interest. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000 from the plaintiff on 12.10.86 and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1. Only a sum of Rs 11,400 was paid and the balanceremains due and payable. The notice was also issued under Ex.A2 dated 9.10.89, calling upon the defendant to make the payment and the amount was not paid. The defendant is employed as a Sub-Registrar at Hosur, drawing more than Rs. 3,000 per month and he also owns immovable properties and, as such, not entitled to get benefit under any of the Debt Relief Act. 3. The defendant resisted the suit, denying the execution of the suit document and also passing of consideration of Rs. 18,000. He also denied the payment of Rs 11,400 towards the suit transaction. There is no endorsement in the suit document relating to any paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »