Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ216
Thangamani, J.1. The family of Rao Bahadur Senthilkumara Nadar of Virudhunagar is one of the richest in this part of the country. It owns extensive extents of plantations in Shervaroy Hills and Kerala besides other assets including a spinning Mill at Tuticorin. It is also having a very flourishing foreign trade of coffee. The family has also its business in Mangalore, Coimbatore, Bangalore and Virudhunagar. M.S.Periaswami Nadar is the eldest of the three sons of Senthi Kumara Nadar. There was a partition among Senthi Kumara Nadar and his sons under Ex. B-76 dated 9.4.1941. Appellant Rajesh and first respondent Raja are the sons of Periaswami Nadar. The father and two sons in turn divided their family properties under Ex. B-2, dated 6.9.1954. Periaswami Nadar died on 21.1.1955. Under Ex. A-2, dated 11.10.1956 appellant, first respondent and their mother Thangammal partitioned the properties left by Periaswami Nadar. Schedule 'A' of this partition deed relates to the properties allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(2)KCCRSN40; 2009(2)AIRKarR477(D.B)
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the order dated 15.07.2008 passed in W.P. No. 28326/2002, wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court has modified the order passed by the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology - fourth respondent, by setting aside the penalty of dismissal and has modified the penalty to withholding four increments with cumulative effect.2. The writ petition was filed by the employee of the first respondent in the writ petition averring that he was appointed as a Fellow (Information) in the year 1986. He applied for Leave Travel Concession (for short, 'LCT'), to visit Benaras for the period from 20.12.1999 to 03.01.2000. The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the 'management' sanctioned LTC, and an amount of Rs. 8,700/- was released. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, by order dated 27.03.2000, time granted for utilization of the LTC, was extended from 03.04.2000 to 17.04.2000, faili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom266; (1949)51BOMLR245
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of certain properties, and in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to set out a pedigree which will explain the relationship of the parties necessary to understand the material questions.2. One Shivram had three sons : Narayan, Hari and Ramkrishna. Narayan had a son Madhav who died in 1936 and his sons are Murlidhar and Vasudev. Hari was married to Gangabai and Hari died on March 22, 1927. Gangabai died on July 22, 1941. Hari and Gangabai had one issue, a daughter Narmadabai who died in 1935. She was married to Natu, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Ramkrishna died in 1939 and his widow is Gitabai, and Ramkrishna had three sons : Vishnu, Laxman and Ramchandra, who are plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Narayan, Hari and Ramkrishna separated a long time ago. Gangabai made a will on July 14, 1941, and by that will she disposed of the property in suit by giving a part of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1334; 1991(2)KarLJ453
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioners, who are the residents of Banashankari Extension I Stage, Block-1, which includes a part of N.R. Colony and Ashokanagar, have embarked on Public Interest Litigation actuated by common cause in defence of public interest. The petitioners are aggrieved by the location and operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in alleged gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners are questioning industrial activity in residential locality by establishing and running factories, work-shops, factory sheds, manufacture of greases and lubricating oils by distillation process and also production of inflammable products by respondents-17 to 49. According to the petitioners, these questionable activities are being carried on in the area comprising of Sy.Nos. 39/1, 39/2A and 39/2B of Yediyur Nagasandra village, Bangalore. The land situate in Sy.No. 39/1 is called 'Vajapeyam Terrace Garde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD435; 2007(3)ALT75
G. Bhavani Prasad, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in Original Suit No.70 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Addanki, dated 30-08-1994 granting declaration of title to and possession of plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff with future mesne profits and costs, while making the delivery of plaint B schedule properties subject to payment of the amount paid by defendants 1 and 2, by the plaintiff, the unsuccessful defendants filed the present appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person claiming that the 1st defendant is the son and the 2nd defendant is the wife of Pinnaka Nageswara Rao, and due to differences, the 2nd defendant left to her parents house along with the 1st defendant a few months after the birth of the 1st defendant and she demanded through elders settlement of her claim for maintenance and the 1st defendant's share in the family properties. Pinnaka Nageswara Rao agreed and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD147; 2006(5)ALT318; [2006(111)FLR523]; (2007)ILLJ189AP
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.Nos. 8088 of 1999 and 7722 of 1999 dated 11.7.2005 whereby the punishment awarded by the labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 73 of 1988 dated 25.1.1999, was modified, the present appeals are filed by Cotton Corporation of India, the Employer. Questioning the award in I.D.No. 73 of 1988, the appellant herein had filed W.P.No. 7722 of 1999, and the respondent workman had filed W.P.No. 8088 of 1999.2. The respondent-workman, a Cotton purchase officer, was issued a charge-sheet on 28.12.1984 and the charges levelled against him therein read thus:i That Shri U. Chinnappa while functioning as Cotton Purchase Officer and posted as Center Incharge at Gudhihattanur center during the cotton season 1983-84 did not work with full devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation by not conducting/ taking experimental outturns as per the guidelines issued, and he has based his purchases with unrealistic outturns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP240; 1999(1)MPLJ679
Dipak Misra, J.1. Correctness of the judgment rendered in the Misc. Appeal No. 1467 94, preferred under Section 299 ot the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the learned single Judge of thisCourt has affirmed the orders passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 86/87, is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 276 of the Act for grant of probate in respect of the properties of one Mrs. Mavis Ada Lynch, on the ground that she had executed a Will on 18-6-1983 in their favour bequeathing of her movable and immovable properties. It was averred in the said application that the Will was written in her own hand and she had executed it. The present appellant, the caveator, did not file any formal objection to resist the application but filed an application forming the subject-matter of Misc. Judicial Case N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(2)BLJR1245
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner workmen of Hindustan Malleables and Forging Ltd. Dhanbad have challenged the order dated 5-9-1991 and the award dated 24-8-1992 passed by Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bokaro Steel Bokaro in Reference Case No. 12 of 1983, whereby it has been held that the action of the Management in dismissing the workmen namely, Shri Safal Mian and others is justified and they are not entitled to any relief.2. It appears that the Government of Bihar by Notification dated 26-4-1983 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication :'Whether the dismissal of Sarbsri Safal Mian, Devkishun Yadav, Dwarika Rajak, Sibu Roy, Shanti Ram Mahto, Mohammad Ali, Mohammad Ismail Ansari, Nizamuddin Ansari-1, Nizamuddin Ansari-2, Maksud Mianh, Shital Prsad Chaudhary, Mohd. Zamil Khan, Nageshwar Singh, Mantu Mahto, Mahadeo Rawani, Kanhai Lal Mahto, Nanu Ram Mahto and Damu Roy-workmen of M/s. Hindustan Malleables and Forgins Ltd., Bhuli, Dhanabad is proper and justified? ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2009)107CALLT332(NULL)
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. The instant case reveals a very sorry state of affairs that there remains a complete darkness in the light house itself. The matter relates to an employee working under the District & Sessions Judge Court, Sundargarh, whose services have been terminated without following the procedure known in law for imposing the major punishment, by the District Judge, Sundargarh and against which appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Committee consisting of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste person, while working as a Process Server, Nizarat, Civil Courts, Rourkela, was attached to the Court of J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur to work as Night-Watchman-cum-Sweeper.He submitted an application for Casual Leave (C.L.) vide application dated 1.5.1993 for five days and sought permission to leave the headquarters for attending the marriage of his sister.The said application was rejected by the au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC369
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order in letter No. M/W 277/16/XII dated 4.11.1997 and qaush the same as illegal.2. According to the petitioner, who is a railway civil engineering contractor for a number of years, was granted permission during 1974 to occupy railway land at Arakkonam Railway Junction measuring about 4000 sq.ft as a licensee on a rental basis. The petitioner states that he had executedan agreement accepting the terms and conditions. The petitioner states that he had signed the readymade and cyclostyled agreement and according to him the copy of the said agreement had not been given to him. However, the petitioner admits that a copy of the agreement has been furnished to him on 19.11.1997. The said agreement copy had not been placed before the court, initially. The petitioner states that the agreement is a standard form, which applies to various lease/license to all type o...
Tag this Judgment!