Chennai Court June 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.
L. Palaniswamy Vs. the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratui ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC568; (1999)IILLJ1263Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of an employee, whose appeal stands dismissed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity. Act, 1972. The petitioner herein was an employee of the second respondent and having served for a number of years, claimed the gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority, after hearing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 3,341.35. This order seems to have been passed on 10thof May, 1988. The appeal against this order under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act was filed. The Memorandum of Appeal suggests that the petitioner was aggrieved because of the refusal of the payment of balance of Rs. 2,785.45. It is apparent from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the appeal came to be rejected straightway on account of the fact that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible limitation. The learned Counsel now challenges the said o...
S. Suresh and ors. Vs. Isabal Thomas and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad275
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlord, who was defeated in both the Courts below have come to this Court challenging the correctness of orders under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. According to the landlord, the concurrent findings of the authorities below are illegal, improper and irregular and therefore the same are liable to be interfered with under the revisional powers of this Court.3. The only ground for eviction was that the respondent is a nuisance both to his neighbours and also the other occupants of the building and liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.4. It is alleged in the rent control petition that by conducting workshop in the scheduled premises the noise is disturbing the locality and the smell of the paint is also affecting the atmosphere. It is also alleged that some of the employees of the respondent are taking bath openly in the premises naked and it is causing annoy...
A. Balasubramaniam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC218
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. A. Balasubramaniam, the petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 7053 of 1996 on the file of the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.2. The petitioner alongwith four others were charge-sheeted by the respondent-Police for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406, IPC and Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On service of summons on the petitioner (Al), he filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 929 of 1997 under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to implead one Krishna Raj, witness No. 2, the father-in-law of the petitioner stating that since the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. made by the wife, witness No. 1 and the father-in-law Krishna Raj, witness No. 2 would reveal that the said Krishna Raj gave 50 sovereigns of jewels as dowry t6 A1 to A3 on the date of marriage, the witness No. 2 also has to be arrayed as an accused under Section 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act by which giving of the dowry is an offence.3. On hearing t...
N. Sivathanu Pillai Vs. R. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ130
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sivathanu Pillai, the petitioner herein, is the tenant, Subramaniam, the respondent herein, is the landlord.2. Though the eviction petition was filed by the landlord/the respondent herein against the tenant/the petitioner herein, on the ground of own use and on the ground of wilful default, the Rent Controller rejected the first ground, but allowed the petition on the ground of wilful default. In the meantime, the tenant/the petitioner herein filed a petition before the Rent Controller under Section 8(v) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for deposit of rent in the court and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller.3. The tenant challenging the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and the order of dismissal of the petition under Section 8(v) of the Act, filed appeals before the appellate authority, which in turn dismissed both the appeals. The petitioner, however, did not choose to challenge the order of dismissal of...
M.S. Premchand Vs. K. Karuppaiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ701
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. M.S. Premchand, the petitioner herein is the landlord, Karuppiah Nadar, the partner of Sri Jagadeeswara Vilas, the first respondent is the tenant. In the petition filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Madurai, in R.C.O.P. No. 166 of 1984, an order was passed against the respondents 1 and 2 evicting them on the ground of wilful default. On being aggrieved, the tenants/the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 141 of 1990 before the Appellate Authority, Madurai. The said appeal was allowed and the order of eviction was set aside. Hence, this revision by the landlord.2. According to the landlord, the petitioner herein, the tenant fell in arrears of rent for 11 months and as he did not make the payment for 11 months' arrears wilfully, he is liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act. According to the tenant, he has already deposited the entire amount in the court and as such, there is no arrears.3. The Rent Control...
C.A. Rahim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ85
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. C.A. Rahim, the petitioner herein, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the Secretary to Government, Religious Endowments Department relating to G.O.Ms. No. 599, dated 11.10.1990 and to quash the same.2. The facts which are required to dispose of this writ petition could be summarised as follows:(a) The petitioner is the tenant of the premises bearing Door No.82-A, Lawrance Road, Thiruppapuliyur, South Arcot District, on the monthly rent of Rs. 625 from 1.7.1981 to 30.6.1984, having been allowed to be a tenant by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Trichy, who had jurisdiction at the relevant time, by his order dated 31.7.1981.(b) The petitioner was carrying on textile business in the said property belonging to Shri Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Pudupalayam, Cuddalore, the fourth respondent, Before the said period is over, the petitioner applied to the fourth respondent viz., the Executive Offi...
The Canara Bank Officer's Association (Regd.) represented by Its Vice- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ240
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this writ petition, the first petitioner is an Association of Canara Bank Officers represented by its Vice-President, while the other petitioners are working in that Bank. The petition is filed solely against Canara Bank, the respondent herein (hereinafter called as 'bank' for the sake of brevity) Clauses 4 and 5 of the Circular dated 25.4.1989 bearing No. 138/89 are in challenge in this petition. The first two clauses of the said Circular suggests that the Officers in Middle Management Grade Scale II and above and officers in Junior Management Grade Scale I would be eligible for quarters and such eligibility would be subject to clauses 4 and 5, which clauses are impugned in this petition. Clause 4 and 5 of the circular dated 25.4.1989 provide as under:(4) No Officer shall be eligible to be provided with quarters by the Bank at a centre/station where he/she has a house in his/her own name or in the name of his/her spouse or a dependent child. The same stati...
T.S Ramalingam and Sons., Yarn Merchants and anr. Vs. the Tiruchendur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ220
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30.1.1980 made in O.S.No. 127 of 1976 by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent- Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, for the recover of damages on breach of contract.2. The history of the case as put forth by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial court is that the first defendant/first appellant entered into a contract with the plaintiff/respondent through the second respondent/second defendant, agreeing to purchase 5 bales of gray cotton yarn at Ex-Mill rate of Rs. 124 per 4.5. kgs., and the documents were to be sent through the bank; that a contract dated 18.9.1974 had Seen entered into and duly signed by parties and by a letter dated 27.9.1974, the first appellant/first defendant also accepted the contract; that the second appellant/second defendant had given a sale confirmation letter dated 14.9.1974; that the first appell...
Smt. Dharani Ammal Vs. P.J. Raphal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ232
ORDERA. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Landlady is the revision petitioner.2. The petitioner filed eviction petition under Section 10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987 to October, 1988. The respondent contends that he is the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises for the past thirty years and he never committed wilful default and the rent upto January, 1987 was received by the agent of the landlady and thereafter, as the suit was pending in the City Civil Court in O.S.No. 117 of 1987, the landlady's agent represented that the rent should be paid only to the lessee of the petitioner to whom the petition mentioned premises was also granted on lease and the lessee was not prepared to receive the rent and directing the respondent to contact the landlady's agent for settlement of the disputes and insisting upon delivery of possession. The respondent was not aware of the scheme behind the petition...
Sree Sankara Rameshwarar Devasthanam Through Its Executive Officer, Tu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC426
ORDER1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Executing Court, viz, the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dismissing the application of the revision petitioner in E.A.No. 349 of 1996 in E.P.No. 254 of 1994 in O.S.No. 1263 of 1981 on his file for amendment of the description of the property to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in the suit.2. Notice of motion was ordered in the Civil revision petition on 17.2.1998. Though the respondents were served, they have not chosen to appear through counsel and contest the case. Mr.V. Raghavachari was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter. The learned counsel also appeared and rendered valuable assistance by citing several authorities in support and against.3. The revision petitioner filed suit O.S.No. 1263 of 1981 before the principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, for recovery of Rs. 1939. 84 with 6% interest as arrears of lease amount due to it from the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »