Chennai Court April 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.
R. Selvanayagam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC411
ORDERJudgement pronounced by S.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Second Class Magistrate in 1982 and he was regularised in the year 1988. From 1988, the post was redesignated as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate.2. Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 1.2.1999 under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Firstrespondent issued orders on the basis of recommendation of the Review Committee of High Court of Madras and the approval of the recommendations of the Review Committee by the Full Court of the High Court, Madras.3. According to petitioner, he is not liable to be compulsorily retired and the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the impugned order was issued against the instructions of G.O.Ms.No. 623 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-R) Department dated 24.7.1983 setting out guidelines for exercise of powers under Funda...
Hirudaya Dass Vs. Govindaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC160
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 178 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal made in A.S.No. 15 of 1983 dated 9.7.1984 in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. At the time of admission the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:(i) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in holding that the defendant is not a trespasser and on that score the suit is liable to be dismissed?(ii) Whether the court below erred in not taking into consideration or giving a specific finding on the question whether the suit is different from the property purchased by the defendant?3. For convenience the parties to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court. Heard Mr.K. Yamunan, le...
Kaleen Corporation Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ334Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in respondent's notice Ref. No. TN/INS/8691/18 and, dated October 10, 1990, and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents availabl...
C.T. Thangaraj Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3436
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Thangaraj, the accused, the petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to call for the records in C.C. No. 244/98 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Walajapet, Vellore District and quash the proceedings.2. Mr. Jothi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would at length argue by citing several judgments that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have to be quashed mainly on the ground that the petitioner filed insolvency petition in I.P. No. 7 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, in which notice to the creditors including the complainant, the respondent herein, was issued and that therefore, once the petition for insolvency is filed under the Provincial Insolvency Act and once the enforceability of the debt has been covered for the relief in the Insolvency Proceedings with a prayer for adjudication in the Insolvency Proceedin...
M. Velusamy and ors. Vs. P. Kandasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ692
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession and for mesne profits.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The property described as A schedule originally belonged to Venkatasubba Chettiar. He died in the year 1972 leaving behind him his son Kandasami, widow and daughter to succeed to his estate. In the partition between the heirs of Venkatasubba Chettiar, the property mentioned as A schedule has been allotted to one of the daughters namely Jayamanohari. On 23.1.1978, the plaintiff purchased the A schedule property for a valid consideration of Rs. 40,000 from Jayamanohari and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The first defendant occupied B schedule property which is part of A schedule property during the last days of Venkatasubba Chettiar and he has been running a tea shop. The occupation of B schedule property by the first defendant is illegal. The first defendant is bound to pay pr...
N. Mohan Vs. the Registrar, High Court of Judicature and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ180
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as copyist in the High Court in 1978 and from July, 1987, he was working as P.A. to Honourable Judges of this Court.2. Mrs. Justice Padmini Jesudurai delivered a judgment in open court on 6.4.1992, in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1987. The sessions court had acquitted the accused in which the State has preferred the appeal. The acquittal was set aside and the accused was found guilty. Consequently, the case was to be posted for getting statement of the accused regarding sentence. The matter was posted to 28.4.1992 for questioning accused with regard to sentence. It is an open court dictation.3. After judgment was dictated, petitioner, who was then P.A., transcribed the same and sent the same to learned Judge. It is seen that the judgment was not signed by learned Judge and the case was also not posted for some days and in the meanwhile, learned Judge also laid down the office. Subsequently, learned Judge was appointed as Full Time Member...
R.J. Veeraraghavan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ274
1. All these writ appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos. 15787, 15788 and 15789 of 1998.2. W.A. 1693 of 1998 arises from W.P. 15787 of 1998 and W.A.Nos. 1694 and 1695 of 1998 are preferred against W.P.Nos. 15788 and 15789 of 1998 respectively.3. The facts may be summarised thus: petitioner/appellant is the Proprietor of a building construction firm by name M/s. Vira Builders. Sealed tenders were invited by the Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board from contractors for taking several items of works in relation to construction of 112 tenements at Valluvar Kudiyiruppu as development works in Corporation Division No. 107. In the tender conditions, some of the relevant provisions in the notification are stated thus:The tender should be accompanied by three separate envelopes ('A', 'B', and 'C') duly superscribed on it the name of work reference No. and due date of tender with the name of the tenderer and sealed ...
T.B. Nath and ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ476
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 569 of 1979 of the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court are the appellants in this second appeal.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 10.7.1997, made in A.S. No. 44 of 1997 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1996 made in O.S. No. 569 of 1979 on the file of the trial court. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:(i) Whether the lease granted in favour of the 1st respondent stood terminated on the expiry of the period of the lease as stated in the lawyer's notice Ex.A-7, dated 12.10.1978 and whether on such termination, the appellants became entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit?(ii) Assuming without conceding that there was a valid renewal of the lea...
Parvathi Ammal Vs. M. Kuppuswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ633
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession and injunction.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff and second defendant are brothers and co-owners of A Schedule property. The plaintiff's father Munuswamy permitted the first defendant to occupy the A schedule property seven years back on the understanding that the first defendant should surrender vacant possession whenever called upon to do so. The first defendant unauthorisedly put up a hut in the site and he was living in some portion and let out the portion to others. On 10.3.1976, there was a fire accident, as a result of which, the huts were burnt down. The plaintiff attained majority a year back. On 21.4.1976, the first defendant began to make arrangements to put up construction on the A schedule property. The first defendant has no right to put up construction in the property as her occupation is only permissive. Therefore, the plaintiff issued notice on ...
K.N. Jamal Mohammed and Another Vs. Corporation of Madras, Madras 6000 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC360
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction, on the following allegations:The plaintiffs purchased the property bearing door No.95, Coral Merchant Street, Madras-1, on 4.4.1984. The plaintiffs submitted plans to the defendant for demolition and reconstruction and the plans were sanctioned by the defendant on 18.1.1985. The plaintiffs put up a building consisting of ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor. But, the plans was sanctioned only for ground and 1st floors. The defendant prosecuted the 1st plaintiff for theunauthorised construction and the plaintiff was also fined with a sum of Rs. 490 and he paid the same. The officials of the Corporation of Madras affixed two notices on the premises under Sections 256 (3) and 256-A of the City Municipal Corporation Act. There was no order preceding under Section 256(3) as contemplated under Section 256(2) of the City Municipal Corporation Act. The orders were not signed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »