Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-28-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Mad329
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered Office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4-4-1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-28-1994
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ42
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration declaring that the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4.4.1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil Weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-1994
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ131
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 882 of 1990, on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, has filed this second appeal.2. The following substantial questions of law has been raised for consideration in this second appeal:(1) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court could be sustained on the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the principles of law applicable thereto? and(2) Whether the view of the lower courts that the suit is competent is sustainable in law?3. Plaintiff is the first respondent, 1st defendant is the second respondent and defendants 3 to 5 in the suit are respondents 3 to 5 in this second appeal. The parties to this second appeal are mentioned hereafter according to their rank in the suit.4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:(a) To pass a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in the post of Tamil Pandit even after 31.10.1990 as such entitled to all the benefits, salary,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-17-1994
Reported in : [1996]86CompCas747(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ petitions involved for determination certain common and identical issues currently in controversy in the Medical circles and consumer litigation relating to the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act 68 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to facilities made available by Hospitals providing medical care and members of medical profession treating a patient, in the realm of diagnosis and treatment. 2. A brief reference to the stage and circumstances of the case which led to the filing of the above writ petitions individually would be necessary to appreciate the nature of the grievance sought to be vindicated by the parties on either side. W.P. No. 1953 of 1992 as the amended prayer stands, has been filed by two Medical Practitioners (husband and wife) for the writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from exercising their jurisdiction against the Medical Practitioners on the basis of the co...
Tag this Judgment!