Court : Chennai
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent made in Se Mu Na Ka No.47497/07/A1 dated 05.06.2010 and quash the same as illegal, void, arbitrary and ultravires.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to implement the order of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Madras made in Na.Ka.No.6365/2008/A1 dated 30.10.2008 by break opening the 4 rooms kept under lock in Arulmighu Kadumabadi Chinnamman Thirukovil, Saidapet West, Chennai 600 015 and handover the articles jointly to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings bearing RC No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1983Mad232; (1983)IIMLJ7
Gokulakrishnan, Offg.C.J.1. By Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1979, the State Government have introduced amendment to certain of the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act (Act X of 1937). In these writ petitions, which form a batch the vires of the amended provisions in Ss. 14 (1, 14 (2), 14 (4) and 14 - A of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. For a better understanding of the case and the facts, we give below the impugned sections both before and after the amendment :- As it stood before amendment. S. 14 (1) When the offender is convicted or when the person charged with an offence against this Act is acquitted, but the Court decided that anything is liable to confiscation, such confiscation may be ordered by the Court. S. 14 (2). Where during the trial of a case for an offence against this Act, the Court decides that anything is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1), the court may, after hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto and the evidence, if any, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Nil, dated 11.06.2010 and subsequent notion in proceedings Na.Ka.2297/A2/2010, dated 29.07.2010 and quash the same, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.O R D E R1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the competence of a Block Medical Officer, who exercised the power under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, and other provisions of the Act, and closed down a Hospital, named "Get Well", Tirukoilur. The Hospital, where treatment was given, began unwell on 11.06.2010, when it was found difficult in meeting out certain defects, alleged to be violations and consequently, sealed. Another proceeding impugned in this writ petition is to the order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to open the hospital.2. According to the petitioner, he has completed bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1917)32MLJ1
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question referred to us is, whether in a mirasi village the mirasidar is entitled to recover possession of a house site held under a patta from Government; and, to show what it involves, it may be well to state at once the circumstances in which it arises in the case under appeal. On the 16th' November 1894 Mr. George Stuart Forbes, Acting Collector of Chingleput, passed orders on certain petitions praying for an extension of the cheri nattam, or part of the village site reserved for pariahs, in the village of Mannur in the Saidapet Taluk not far from Madras. He began by observing that out of the whole Survey No. 14A of 23 acres which was classed as village site, 97 cents, or nearly one acre, identical with Survey No 45 in the paimash or old survey, was shown in the paimash account as 'Cherial Pizhakkadai' or reserved for pariahs. There had, he went on to say, been no erection on this site by any mirasidar since the date of the paimash (apparently about 1845) an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)2MLJ156
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench as the substantial question that calls for examination is the correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Munahmnainatha Desikar v. Gopala I.L.R.(1943) Mad. 858 : (1943) 1 M.L.J. 434 about the applicability of the rule in Juttendramohun Tagore v. Ganendromohun Tagore (1872) 9 Beng. L.R. 377 : L.R. (1872) IndAp 47 to the office of manager of a South Indian temple under a scheme of succession settled by the founder. The very scheme of succession and right to management of the properties of the temple now in question was the subject-matter of adjudication in Manathunainatha Desikar v. Gopala (1943) 1 M.L.J. 434 : I.L.R.(1943) Mad. 858 and this aspect has given rise to a question of res judicata for consideration.2. The suit, the decree wherein in favour of the plaintiff has given rise to this appeal by the first defendant, is for a declaration that the first defendant is not entitled to be a join...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1925)ILR68Mad1
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. In A.D. 1674 during the reign of the great Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb, Ekoji alias Venkaji took Tanjore from its Nayak Rulers without firing a shot. This Mahratta General was the son of Shahji who had attained military distinction under the independent Muhamadan States of Ahmednugger and Bijapur and in the course of one of his military expeditions had levied a contribution from the Nayak Chiefs of Tanjore and Madura in the South Carnatic country.2. Ekoji's grandfather was Malloji, a Mahratta of the Bhonsle family, who distinguished himself under Jadava or Jadow Rao, a Mahratta Chief in the service of the Ahmednugger Government, and won the hand of his daughter Jiji Bai for his elder son Shahji. Shahji by his first wife Jiji Bai was the father of the famous Sivaji who founded the Mahratta Empire in the Deccan in the 17th century, and by his second wife Tukka Bai, daughter of Mahratta parents with the surname of Mohitai, was the father of Ekoji, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad497
Spencer, Offg.C.J.1. In A.D. 1674 during the reign of the great Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb, Ekoji alias Venkaji took Tanjore from its Nayak Rulers without firing a shot. This Mahratta General was the son of Shabji who had attained military distinction under the independent Muhamadan States of Ahmednugger and Bijipur and in the course of one of his military expeditions had levied a contribution from the Nayak Chiefs of Taujore and Madura in the South Carnatic country.2. Ekoji's grandfather was Malloji, a Mahratta of the Bhonsle family, who distinguished himself under Jadava or Jadow Bow, a Mahratta Chief in the service of the Ahmednugger Government, and won the hand of his daughter Jiji Bai for his elder son Shahji. Shahji by his first wife Jiji Bai waa the father of the famous Sivaji who founded the Mahratta Empire in the Deccan in the 17th century, and by his second wife Tukka Bai, daughter of Mahratta parents with the surname of Mohitai, was the father of Ekoji, the founder of the Mahra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1941)1MLJ644
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following questions:(1) Where a manager of a Hindu religious institution makes an alienation of the property of the institution for valuable consideration and the succeeding manager seeks to impeach that alienation by suit, will Article 134-B apply when there is an interval of time between the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager and the election or appointment of the subsequent manager?(2) If such succeeding manager happens to be a minor at the date of his election or appointment, will he be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act?(3) If Article 144 be held applicable to the case, when does adverse possession commence? Is it from the date of the election or appointment of the succeeding manager or from, the date of the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager who effected the alienation?2. The reference arises out of Appeal No. 26 of 1937, which was pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: W.P. No.1215 of 2015 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration of the decision of the Peace Committee Meeting held on 12.1.2015 at Namakkal, Namakkal District in respect of the novel Madhorubagan written by Perumal Murugan under the Chairmanship of District Revenue Officer, Namakkal District, the 3rd respondent as null and void and ultra vires Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. W.P. No.20372 of 2015 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to forfeit all the copies of the book titled Madhorubagan written in Tamil by the 1st respondent and its translated English version titled One Part Woman printed, published, circulated, offered for sale and sold in various formats, i.e. in print media and electronic media by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. Crl. O.P. Nos.7086 and 7153 of 2015 : Petitions filed under ...
Tag this Judgment!