Chennai Court July 1999 Judgments
Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC1
ORDER1. This order shall cover three writ petitions, they being Writ Petition No. 9352 of 1997, Writ Petition No. 9613 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 11501 of 1997 since the subject is common. In all the three writ petitions challenge is to the G.O.Ms.No. 130 (Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department) dated 8.5.1997 by which the Government has created a common cadre in the respect of two posts in Central Co-operative Banks. A short back ground of facts would not be out of place. 2. On 23.12.1992 the Government constituted a committee to go into the question of creating a common cadre of some of the posts in the Co-operative Bank sector. That committee after extensive research came out with its report and on that basis the Government has now passed the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 130 on 8.5.1997 thereby creating a common cadre for two posts in the Central Co-operative Banks. Earlier there used to be two posts, they being, posts of Secretary and Assistant Secretary in these banks. No...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammed Iqubal Vs. M. Padmanabhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC116; (1999)3MLJ330
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1994 made in R.C.A.No. 17 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18.8.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No. 28 of 1986 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Arakkonam.2. The original petition for eviction of the tenant has been filed by the landlord on four grounds viz, (1) wilful default in payment of rent, under Section 10(2)(i); (2) for committing acts of waste by the tenant thereby impairing materially the value or utility of the building, under Section 10(2)(iii); (3) the tenant being guilty of such acts which are nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions, under Section 10(2)(v) and (4) requiring additional accommodation by the landlord (who is occupying a part of the building) under Section 10(3)(c), all under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.3. The R...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika and anr. Vs. P. Kulandai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ142; I(2001)DMC354
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 10.1.1995 made in C.R.P. No. 122 of 1993 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Salem thereby setting aside the order dated 16.7.1993 made in M.C. No. 10 of 1991 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari, wherein in an application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari, has directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 50/- to the second petitioner till she attained majority.2. The petitioners' contentions, in a nut-shell, are that the first petitioner got married to the respondent 4 years back according to the caste customs and rituals; that even though the respondent had already been married to one Muthulakshmi and had a female child, he represented that his first wife had passed away, in a clandestine manner, and got married with the first petitioner; that from out ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Esakki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ319
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 30.1.1996 made in R.C.A.No. 2 of 1995 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22.3.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1993 by the Rent Controller and the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudram.2. Originally, it is the landladies, who filed the petition before the Rent Controller on two specific grounds viz., (i) wilful default in payment of the rents under Section 10(2)(i) and (ii) for personal use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. contending that the premises was originally belonging to one Mylerum Perumal and on his death, both the respondents herein continued to be in possession and ultimately it fell to the share of the second respondent herein in the family partition, that for years together, the revision ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ganesan Vs. A. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ342
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and final orders dated 23.1.1996 made in R.C.A.No. 118 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22.9.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 1989 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Thirumangalam.2. To trace the history of the case, it is the landlord, who has filed the original petition before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner herein, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for demolition and reconstruction of the rental premises, pleading thereby that the monthly rent of the premises according to the English calendar month is Rs. 35 that the landlord having already filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant, the said petition had been withdrawn on 30.11.1981, since the tenant...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pappa and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ347
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The issues raised in all the writ petitions are common in nature. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by the following common Order. The writ petitions are Secondary Grade Teachers Aided Schools, Secondary Grade Teachers Association, Private Aided Primary Middle School Managers and Teachers Association. Generally the petitioners have sought for directions by calling for the records relating to the following Government Orders issued by respondent/Government of Tamil Nadu and consequential Order of Director of School Education:(1) G.O.Ms.No. 1524, Education, dated 12.11.1990,(2) G.O.Ms.No. 1669, Education, dated 13.12.1990,(3) G.O.Ms.No. 20, Education, dated 8.1.1993,(4) G.O.Ms.No. 494, Education, dated 19.5.1993,(5) G.O.Ms.No. 279, Education, dated 9.4.1996,(6) G.O.Ms.No. 5, Education, dated 6.1.1997 and(7) G.O.Ms.No. 365, School Education, dated 20.8.1997.As stated earlier all the contentions in these writ petitions are identical and common in nature. For...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Selvam Dhanapal Vs. M.K.M. Abdul Salam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ527
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 971 of 1987, on the file of Second Additional Sub Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the revision petitioner.2. An ex parte decree was passed against him and the same was sought to be set aside by filing an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. There was delay in filing that application, and the same was sought to be explained by filing I.A.No. 279 of 1990. There was a delay of 260 days in preferring the application to set a side the ex parte decree.3. In the affidavit filed in support of that application, she has stated that she had engaged a counsel, who filed a vakalath, but thereafter he did not inform him about the hearing date. Therefore, she could not file written statement. On 25.11.1989, an ex parte decree was passed. She came to know about the same only during summer vacation when she received the case bundle from her counsel's father, since the counsel died by that time. It is her case that since she was not aware of the ear...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Vs. Nagamani and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC450
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mahendra Kumar, the claimant is the appellant before this Court.2. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.3. On 7.5.1985, when he was riding on his bi-cycle in Chengalpet-Kanchepuram High Road, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tourist Taxi, Ambassadar car bearing registration No. TDU 5656 belonging to the first respondent, which was insured with the second respondent herein.4. The first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, did not contest the claim and he remained ex parte.5. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the driver of the tourist taxi was not negligent and at any rate, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim of compensation, since the driver of the tourist car was not possessing a valid driving licence for driving the tourist taxi at the time of the accident.6. During the course o...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan and 4 Others Vs. M. Sundararaja thevar and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC545; (2000)1MLJ121
ORDER1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 138 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court at Virudhunagar are revision petitioners.2. They filed a suit to declare the first plaintiff as 'Ambalam' of Mela Aviyoor Village and is entitled to all the temple Honours in all the temples of Aviyoor Village and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' right to get 'honour' as 'Ambalam' and for consequential reliefs.3. The claim of the plaintiffs was seriously disputed by the defendants.4. For the purpose of proving their case, they wanted to rely on certain public documents. The genuineness was not disputed. Those public documents were in the possession of first plaintiff and he wanted those documents to be received in evidence. The details of the documents are 1) Aviyoor Village 'A' Register -- Pages 29, 43, 44, 48, and 50 then, 2) Field Measurement Book -13) Village Plan - 1. In the affidavit in sup...
Tag this Judgment!Amhalavanan Vs. A. Anhalagan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC36
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.1. Petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No. 56 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, and the proceedings against him and another came to be initiated by way of a private complaint at the instance of the respondent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In the said complaint, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner wanted him to sell some lands and that he refused and later, agreed to sell them and accordingly, the sale deed was executed and the property was conveyed through the said sale deed. It is the further allegation in the complaint that one of the considerations for the said sale is the promise made by the petitioner to offer transport contract for transporting limestones and that later, the petitioner went back on his promise and the contract was offered to other persons.2. In my view, the allegations in the complaint did not make out an offence punishable under section 420 IPC since the ingredients of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »