Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
J. Lease and Co and 2 Others Vs. M.S.A. Mohamed Farooq
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC423
ORDER1. The defendants in O.S.No.7876 of 1986 on the file on of the Fifth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein, who is plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land site forming part of the premises bearing Municipal Door No.199, Broadway, renamed as Prakasam Salai, George Town, Madras 600 108, excluding the south west corner portion of two rooms etc., bounded on the north by Door No. 199 east by Pophams Broadway and west by Meera Labbai Street comprised in R.S.No.2344 situate within the sub-registration district of Sowcarpet and the registration district of North Madras.2. The ownership of the property is not disputed. The revision petitioners claim that they are entitled to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations on this in the plaint are as under:Originally the first revision petitioner was the sole prop...
Tag this Judgment!Prema Vs. K.V. Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC617
ORDER1. The Civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the procedural irregularity alleged to have been committed by the Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, while pronouncing the judgment in O.S.No.584 of 1996.2. The case of the revision petitioner is as follows:She filed the said suit before the Seventh Assistant City Civil Court against the respondent herein for specific performance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988. According to her, she had paid the entire sale consideration as evidenced by certain documents. Even though the respondent had not denied the payment specifically in the written statement, the petitioner had proved the payment also by filing the income-tax returns. The lower Court did not accept the said payment and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of specific performance, but, however, directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!L. Varadarajan and ors. Vs. Thomas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad283
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Respondents in A.S. No. 168 of 1999 on the file of the District Court at Tuticorin, (now transferred to Sub-Court, Tuticorin and Renumbered as A.S. No. 133 of 1999) are the revision petitioners :2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 686 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Tuticorin. Their suit was decreed as per decree and judgment dated 12-10-1999. Respondents herein without filing a copy of the certified decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge. Tuticorin. along with an application LA. No. 405 of 1999, praying to dispense with the production of certified copy of the decree for the present. In the affidavit in support of that application, it was stated by the respondents that though they have applied for the certified copy of the decree emergently on 13-10-1999 itself, the same has not been issued and if they are to wait till certified copy of decree is obtained, their rights will be prejudiced and they may be permitted to file ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Devarajan Vs. R. Geetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad440
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Judgment-debtor, who is the husband in H.M.O.P. No. 53 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Poonamallee, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that application, respondent herein filed I.A. No. 210 of 1986, seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses. On 30-9-1989, Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month as interim maintenance and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/-. Petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance from 26-6-1986. Though the matter was challenged in C.R.P. No. 3037 of 1989, the same was dismissed by this Court on 30-3-1992. Thereafter, the matter was taken before the trial Court and since it was represented that the order has not been complied with, on 4-12-1992, it stayed all the further proceedings in the case. The order reads thus :(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.)3. Respondent filed E.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Employees Union (Coach Division) Vs. Management of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ990Mad
N.V. Bala Subramanian, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of declaration to declare the demand of respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the management) that the members of the petitioner-union will not be allowed to work unless they sign the undertaking set out in the order, Ref. SC.V. 774, dated October 24, 1990, as illegal and consequently direct the management not to insist on such undertaking and pay the wages to the members of the petitioner union for the days they have not provided work on the ground that they failed to execute the said undertaking.2. An interesting question on the power of the management in demanding the undertaking of good conduct arises in the writ petition. But, on the factual situation, there are diametrically two opposite versions, one given by the writ-petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and another given by the management in the counter-affidavit. Since a factual dispute has arisen, it is felt ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bajaj Preeti Tulsidas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2625
ORDER1. Petitioner is the detenue against whom an order is passed by the State Government on 9-7-1999, directing the detention under the provisions of Section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA 'Act).2. It seems that on 9-5-1999, the detenue, holder of an Indian Passport, arrived as a passenger at Anna International Airport, Chennai from Singapore, by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 410, and was carrying a zipper bag as checked in baggage as also a dark blue colour zipper suitcase and two red colour handbags. The detenue then proceeded to Customs Table No. 10 and declared that she was in possession of two cellular phones and other goods totally vaued at Rs. 80,000/-. She was intercepted on suspicion and when asked whether she was carrying any contraband, the detenue replied in the negative. When she was examined closely in the Air Intelligence Unit room, she again reiterated that she wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Nallalagu Polytechnic Managing Committee, Kamaraj Education and Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC362
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.8.1994 made in E.A.No.999 of 1989 in E.P.No.2 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The petitioner Trust has filed the petition before the lower Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that it purchased an extent of 7.72 acres of land in various survey numbers at Thandalkalani Village and established therein Sri Nallalagu Polytechnic Institution; that subsequent to the execution of Kamaraj Education and Research Foundation Trust Deed, the administration of the Polytechnic came to be vested in the present Trust Board and the petitioners carry on the administration of the said Polytechnic as on today and that the properties including the sale deeds stand in the name of the Board of Management of Polytechnic.3. The further contentions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Jeisi Deisi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC739
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5155/A4/97, dated 12.11.1997 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent School. 2. Heard Mr.K. Chandru, for M/s. G. Jermiah and P. Krishnan, and Mr.N. Subramani, Government Advocate (Edn.) appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner's case could be summarized briefly: The petitioner after passing Higher Secondary Course Certificate joined the Teachers Training Course at Children's Garden School, Mylapore, a recognised Teachers Training Institute and completed the course in 1989. The petitioner appeared for the examination conducted by the Director of Government Examinations and the said authority issued Teachers Training Certificate Secondary Grade. The certificate also mentioned that the petitioner had appeared for the Kindergarten Examination. 4....
Tag this Judgment!Mayil Mark Nilayam Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT659(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm represented by its Managing partner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any action by treating the products sold by the petitioner, namely, 'Seeakkai Thool' and 'Mohwa Powder' (Arappu Thool) as excisable goods falling under sub heading Nos. 3307.90 and 3402.90 in Chapter Nos. 33 and 31 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. This court admitted the writ petition on 29-8-1998. The respondents have been served and the respondents have also filed their counter affidavit.3. Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. P.R. Balasubramaniam, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.M.G. Varadarajan learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.4. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has been carrying on the family business under the name and style of Mayil Mark Nilayam over a period of 50 years at Madras and they sell th...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Polytronics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees' S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR10]; (2001)ILLJ1293Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 113 of 1986. The petitioner/ company before the Employees' Insurance Court is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. A notice under Section 45-A of theEmployees' State Insurance Act, 1948, datedMay 6, 1986, was directed against the appellantherein calling upon the company to pay aspecific amount with interest at 6 per cent foreach day of further default from the date of theorder. It was stated in the notice that subsequentto the earlier notice to show cause andinspection of the factory on July 4, 1983, thefactory was treated as covered with effect fromFebruary 16, 1983, and the employer wasadvised to comply with the provisions of theEmployees' State Insurance Act (hereinaftercalled 'the Act'). But even after the inspectionon February 27, 1984, and the subsequentclarification, the employees designated asapprentices who are not apprentices governedunder the Apprentice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »