Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
Lakshminarayanan Vs. Vaigundanamamani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC321
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.59 of 1992 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge Tenkasi dismissing his I.A.No.174 of 1999 filed for condoning the delay of 581 days in representing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree has filed the present revision.2. According to the petitioner the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi against the petitioner for partition in the suit properties claiming 7/12rd shares in the first item and 2/3rd share in items 2 to 6. The petitioner has filed a written statement denying the claim on the ground that his mother, one brother and four sisters have released their respective shares in his favour and therefore, they are entitled to only 2/9th share. On 12.8.97 the petitioner was set ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed. As he was not well, he could not attend Courton 12.8.97; accordingly he filed a petition to set aside the decree under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. within the...
Tag this Judgment!Mangayarkarasi Vs. Suseela and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad266
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. 230 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur is the revision petitioner herein.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order in I.A. 220 of 1999 an application filed by him whereby he wanted direction against Respondents 1 and 2 to file their counter-statement to I.A. 785 of 1998 in the suit by complying Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 of Code of Civil Procedure.3. The material facts which necessitated filing of such application could be summarised thus: The suit filed by plaintiff was one for grant of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men from Interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of suit property until the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law. According to plaintiff, she entered into a contract of sale on 26-10-1985. In part performance of that contract, she was put in possession of scheduled property. According to her, time is not essence of the contract. While she was in posses...
Tag this Judgment!Mowbrays Flats Owner's Association Vs. C.A.M. RiazuddIn alias RiazuddI ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad313
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This Original Side Appeal has arisen in this way:--The respondent herein is the owner of the site, who promoted the apartment complex, known as Mowbrays Flats, which consists of twelve flats excluding the ground floor. The respondent herein retained a portion of the ground floor, which he initially let out to a Motorcycle Showroom-cum-Service Centre. Later, the Showroom was vacated and the respondent herein is contemplating to run a restaurant in a portion of the ground floor, for which purpose, he has entered into an agreement with the second defendant in the suit, by name, Samir Singla. Therefore, the appellant herein in his capacity as the President of Mowbrays Flats Association filed the suit in C.S. No. 842 of 1999 to restrain the defendants therein from running the restaurant, since the restaurant would generate nuisance and cause much inconvenience to the inmates of the houses. According to the appellant herein, all type of persons would come to the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sekar Vs. Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR781]; (2000)IILLJ694Mad
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Heard Sri. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the writ- petitioner and Sri D. Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The writ-petitioner was retrenched from the second respondent establishment. Thereafter noticing that the second respondent continues to employ fresh hands, the writ-petitioner sought for the benefit conferred on such retrenched worker under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. This dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 171 of 1989 and the Labour Court by judgment, dated July 24, 1991, dismissed the said dispute. The present writ petition is against that award.2. Sri. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the writ- petitioner, would contend that once a retrenchment under the Act is established then irrespective of the fact whether the worker got only the compensation as provided for under Section 25-F of the Act or he negotiated with the employer for a higher compensation and obtained the same...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.S. SalahuddIn Vs. C. Shameemunnissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC600; (2000)IIMLJ227
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlady sought his eviction on the grounds of acts of waste, different user and demolition and reconstruction. Both the authorities below found against the landlady with regard to the first two grounds, namely, acts of waste and different user. However, with regard to demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller held that the respondent/landlady had not made out a case. The Appellate Authority differed and found that a case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been made out and ordered.2. Before the Rent Controller the landlady filed a plan only for change of roof and the Rent Contoller found that no case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act could be spelt out from the plan produced before him. Before the Appellate Authority the landlady sought to file a plan obtained from the Municipal Authorities for demolition and reconstruction. This ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. MuneeruddIn and 4 Others Vs. P.M. Punnoose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC577
ORDER1. The matter arises under the Rent Control Act. The owners are the revision petitioners. The eviction of the respondent/tenant was sought on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from 1.11.1988 to 31.3.1989. The allegations in the petition are to the effect that the respondent had not been regular in the payment of monthly rents, that he used to send rent by money order without mentioning the month for which the rent was sent and that this he did inspite of protest and the lawyer notice dated 1.2.1989 and therefore he has liable to be evicted. The petition was filed on 17.4.1989.2. The counter of the respondent among other things stated that he hadbeen regularly sending the rents by money order to the first petitioner byspecifying the months, that he sent the money order till the end of 31.8.1988,that even though the rent in respect of the property payable only in thesubsequent months, he used to sometimes send the rent for one particularmonth in that month itself d...
Tag this Judgment!Danapal and 3 Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC465
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.Dhinakar, J.1. The appellants are A.1 to A. 3 and A. 6 in S.C.No.125 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. They were tried along with two other accused, namely, A.4 and A.5 before the learned Sessions Judge. Though the learned Sessions Judge framed four charges, he convicted A.1 and A.6 under charge No.2 for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorousimprisonment for a period of one year for causing simple injury to P.W.I, the brother of the deceased Jayakumar by fisting him on his face. A.1 to A.3 were also convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. on an allegation that they caused the death of Jayakumar, the brother of P.W. 1, by the fist accused beating him with a casuarina stick, M.O.5 and the second accused assaulting him with an iron pipe and the third accused beating him with a casuarina stick on the back of his chest...
Tag this Judgment!Solai Hall theatre Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad281
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petilioner Cinema Theatre has filed both the above writ petitions praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the G.O. Rt. No. 3785 so far as the W.P. No. 19524 of 1092 is concerned and G.O. Rt. No. 3787 solar as the W.P. No. 19525 of 1992 is concerned, both passed by the Home (Cinema-I) Department, dated 4-11-1992 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court deems fit and proper.For the sake of convenience, W.P. No. 19524 of 1992 is hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition and W.P. No. 19525 of 1992 as the second writ petition.2. So far as the first writ petition isconcerned, from the impugned order sought to be quashed. It comes to be known that the Revenue Divisional Officer. Dindigul had inspected the said theatre on three occasions, first time on 27-2-1988, second time on 20-3-1988 and third time on 23-4-1988 and on all the three occasions and on 27-2-1988, when the said Officer inspected the theatre. The following irregularities ...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Harikrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1023Mad
N.K. Jain, J.1. Writ appeals 1035 and 1036 of 1989 are filed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated November 8, 1989 made in W.P. Nos. 14661 and 14666 of 1989 and Writ Appeals 15 and 16 of 1990 are filed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated December 13, 1989 made in Writ Petition Nos. 15615 of 1989 and 15630 of 1989 respectively, wherein the learned single Judge had not interfered with the findings of the Labour Court concerned.2. Writ Petition Nos. 10717/1994 and 15131 to 15133 of 1995, filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the awards passed by the Labour Court, had been ordered to include in the list along with the aforesaid appeals as the point in issue was one and the same. So, by this common judgment we are dealing with the aforesaid writ appeals as well as the writ petitions.3. It is not necessary to give the entire facts pertaining to each of the writ appeals and writ petitions. Suffice it to give the brief facts which are necessary for the...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence S.M. Vs. Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ567Mad
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S.M. Lawrence, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records, pertaining to the order bearing No. 21693/90/K4, dated December 6, 1990, in confirming the order No. R.C. 16602/88/K4, dated September 14, 1990, dismissing the petitioner from service, and to quash the same and direct the respondent-Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, Madras, to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages.2. The minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:'(A) The petitioner joined the respondent-management as Warehouse Manager Grade 1, on December 6, 1964. He was promoted as Regional Manager with effect from September 4, 1982. When he was working as Regional Manager at Trichy, he was served with a charge memo bearing No. R.C. 16602/88/K4, dated July 21, 1988. In the said memo, sixteen specific charges were framed under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »