Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1958Mad343; (1958)1MLJ367
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred to this Court under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act from the order of the Election Tribunal, Nagapattinam, in Election Petition No. 178 of 1957 before it.2. The election in question was to the Mayuram constituency of the Madras State Assembly, and two members--one to the general seat and one reserved for a member of the scheduled caste--had to be elected. The election was held on nth March, 1957. At this election, G. Narayanaswami Naidu and P. Jayaraj who were the respondents in the election petition were respectively elected to the general and reserved seats. The question at issue in the petition related to the propriety of the rejection of the nomination of C. Krishnamurthi, the election petitioner. First February, 1957, was the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations. On that date one of the candidates K. Krishnamurthi--not a party to these proceedings--objected to the nomination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22. 08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 AND W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011 AND W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos. 1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 & 1 of 2013 W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 Vellaichamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by The Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai, represented by its Chairman. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, High Tension Line Construction I, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents (R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 07.02.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 in W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009.) Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)3MLJ1146
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Court in the above batch of writ appeals and writ petitions is as to whether Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, namely, Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 is valid or not?2. When the batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by Association or by Corporate Sectors have been filed before the learned single Judge, questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, the learned single Judge by the order dated 21.10.2003 dismissed those writ petitions holding that the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is valid.3. The above batch of writ appeals have been filed before this Division Bench challenging the said common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing those writ petitions in W.P. No. 17223 etc. of 2003. Apart from these writ appeals, a number of writ petitions questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 have also been listed before this Division Bench for disposal.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ662
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The validity of The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, is the subject matter of challenge in these batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by association or by corporate sectors, as the case may be.2. At the outset it has to be pointed out that no one has challenged the constitutional vires of the Act, but the challenges are on the periphery. Innumerable contentions were advanced by various learned senior counsel and they will all be considered one by one.3. The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as The Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is an Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The preamble to the Act reads thus :-'An Act to consolidate and rationalise laws relating to the levy of taxes on consumption or sale of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu.'4. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 17.5.03 and was published on 19.5.03 in the Gazette. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)2MLJ406
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Under the scheme formulated by the Government to relieve unemployment among the educated classes, Local Boards were encouraged to establish schools in villages which would provide employment for teachers. One of the schools so established was at Kunnangalpalayam in Palladam taluk in Coimbatore District. The sanctioned strength of that school was one teacher. On 13th March, 1955, the President of the District Board, Coimbatore, appointed the petitioner to that post, and the petitioner took charge of his post on 18th March,1955.2. On 15th June, 1955 the Junior Deputy Inspector of Schools, Palladam, inspected the school. He recorded certain irregularities and recommended the removal of the petitioner from his office. Apparently the District Education Officer was also of the same view. On receipt of the report and recommendations of the Educational authorities the President of the District Board issued his order dated 2nd August, 1955, the relevant portion of which r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ338
Srinivasan, J.1. Though the question which arises for consideration in this second appeal is a simple one, it appears to be complicated on account of the trappings, which are usually found in a case from Kanniakumari District. The suit was originally one for redemption of a mortgage dated 11.12.1952, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first-defendant with reference to an extent of about 20 cents in survey number 3734 in Puthuval Purayidam. The plaintiff got title to the property by a sale in his favour by his mother Nakchithiram under Ex. A-7 dated 7.4.1220 Me. The Plaintiff's mother had in turn purchased the property from one Elias Nadar under Ex. A-4 dated 22.2.1103. On the same day, she executed a mortgage and Kuzhikkonam deed under Ex. B-1 in favour of one Yovan Vedakkannu with reference to an extent of 1 acre, including the present suit-property. The mortgageunder Ex. B-1 executed a sub-mortgage in favour of Chellamma and Rosali under Ex. A-10 dated 13.10.1110 Me correspon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)2MLJ340
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886 of 1990 in C.S. No. 560 of 1978 and Application No. 1885 of 1990 in C.S. No. 559 of 1978, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31.10.1990 was passed in those two applications and another Application No. 1892 of 1990 in C.S. No. 557 of 1978 on the file of this Court, The above referred to three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12.10.1976 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The abovesaid three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. No. 560 of 1978 and C.S. No. 559 of 1978, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1992)ACC456; AIR1992Mad206; (1991)IIMLJ340
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. These two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886/90 in C.S. 560/78 and application No. 1885/90 in CS. 559/78, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31-10-1990 was passed in those two applications and another application No. 1892/90 in C.S. 557/78 on the file of this court. The above referred three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12-10-76 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The above said three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned Trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. 560/78 and C.S. 559/78, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their claims under the Carriage by Air Act 1972. But, subsequently,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ121
Lakshmanan, J.1. The plaintiff above named filed C.S. No. 339 of 1989 with the following prayers:(a) direct the arbitration agreement bearing No. 81/CN/84, dated 6.11.1984, Agreement No. 16/CN/84, dated 15.2.1984 and No. 82/CN/ 84, dated 6.11.1984 filed into this Hon'ble Court;(b) direct the first defendant to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the agreement;(c) costs of this application be provided;(d) such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.His case in short:Plaintiff entered into three agreements with the defendants Railway Administration for carrying out certain work as detailed in paragraph 3 of his plaint and in pursuance of these agreements, the plaintiff was executing the works and was submitting periodically the Bills. The work was completed and final bills were also submitted. The plaintiff firm did not receive the full amount claimed. Later it was found that in respect of agreement No. 16/CN/84, dated 15.2.1984, a sum of Rs. 3,29,812 was re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1995Mad277
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition against the dismissal of his I. A. No. 91 of 1993 for amending his plaint in O.S. No. 197 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit is for a declaration that the suit document dated 17-2-1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and one Diravia Thevar is only a mortgage deed and not a sale deed as it purports to be and for consequential injunction. The suit was filed on 16-9-1990and while P.W. 1 was being examined at the trial of the suit, the above said I.A. No. 91 of 1993 was filed in Feb. 1993. As per the original plaint, though the above said document purported to be a sale deed it is only a mortgage deed but now by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to plead that the said document is a void document and hence he wants to have an alternative prayer for a declaration that the said deed is void. For seeking this alternative prayer, the relevant allegations in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!