Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-06-1988
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ164
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The landlady, who was successful in obtaining an order for eviction before the Rent Controller under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, but failed before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein.2. The petitioner is a doctor. After having passed M.B., B.S., in this country, she went to United States of America for getting higher qualifications and returned towards the end of 1979. Her husband is a qualified Engineer who also got higher qualifications in United States of America. The petitioner purchased the petition premises on 26-2-1980 under Ex. P.2 from the prior owner thereof. According to the petitioner, the purchase was made with a view to occupy the same for purpose of residence and also a clinic besides office of consultancy for the husband of the petitioner. The ground floor of the premises was vacant at the time when the petition was filed. The tenant 5th respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1988
Reported in : AIR1990Mad62
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J. 1. In this case, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is not a judgment within the meaning of Cl. 15 Letters Patent of this High Court. Much argument was addressed by both the parties on this substantive question of law as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word 'judgment'. As we are not concerned with the entire facts of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the same in this judgment, but suffice to mention certain salient facts for the determination of the legal question.2. The respondent-company has filed C.S. 551 of 1987 for the following reliefs :--(a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for the torts committed by them; (b) restraining the defendants from carrying on business activity in the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals like Alpha computers and computer peripherals like Alpha Numeric terminals. Colour graphic Terminals and other pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1988
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ147
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. In this case, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is not maintainable as the order impugned is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Much argument was addressed by both the parties on this substantive question of law as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word 'Judgment'. As we are not concerned with the entire facts of the case, it is not necessary to deal with the same in this judgment, but suffice to mention certain salient facts for the determination of the legal question.2. The respondent-company has filed O.S. No. 551 of 1987 for the following reliefs:(a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for the torts committed by them.(b) restraining the defendants from carrying on business activity in the manufacture of computers and computer peripherals like Alpha computers and computer peripherals like Alpha Numeric Terminals, Colour Graphic Terminals and other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-05-1988
Reported in : (1990)2MLJ175
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Defendants 4, 6 and 7 Legal representative of Fifth Defendant in O.S. No.85 of 1974, Sub Court, Tuticorin are appellants herein. Plaintiff is the first respondent. Second defendant having died, his legal representatives are impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. Third defendant, the wife of the second defendant is the wife of the third respondent.2. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's title to the 1st Schedule property, and to direct defendants 4 to 7 to deliver possession, and to pay mesne profits or in the alternative to direct defendants 2 and 3 to pay plaintiff the amounts specified in the 2nd Schedule with costs.3. In the plaint it is stated that third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. First Schedule Property bearing Door No : 323, North Car Street, Sankarankovil alongwith other properties were settled by one Sankaralinga Mudaliar and his wife Nedungi. Animal in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under settlement deed dated : 16-9-1968. Four dau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-1988
Reported in : [1988]71STC140(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. W.P. No. 2298 of 1981 is filed to issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order or orders and call for the records in TNGST No. 179994/80-81 dated 18th March, 1981 on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirkali and prohibit from proceeding further in pursuance of the said notice in TNGST No. 179994/80-81 on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sirkali dated 18th March, 1981. 2. Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1981 is filed to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order or orders prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of his notice dated 3rd April, 1981 and pass such further or other order or orders. 3. Prohibition is a judicial writ, issuing out of a superior court, to an inferior court, preventing the inferior court from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested, or in other words, to compel courts with judicial duties to keep within the limits...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-1988
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ923Mad
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In these two writ petitions, applications were preferred by persons, stated to be employees of the petitioner, for determination of the amount of gratuity under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 39 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The applications were not preferred within the time prescribed. There is a move to have the delay condoned. The first respondent in these two writ petitions, without first deciding the question of condonation of delay would say, by the impugned orders, that the main applications themselves would be considered, both on merits as well as from the angle of delay. Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, does prescribe a time limit for preferring an application of present nature. When there is a delay in preferring the application, the authority has to condone the delay, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. This he must do first. This is the implic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-01-1988
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ72
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the main point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that when once the power of resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners is vested with the respondent-Government, it cannot be held that the lands in question are owned by the petitioners absolutely, in other words as full owners, so as to hold that the petitioners in these writ petitions are liable to pay urban land tax. The petitioners in these four petitions belong to one group of companies, known as Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Padi, Madras-50. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.No 4172 of 1982 reads as follows:To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in C.M.A. No. 133 of 1978 on the file of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Chingleput, and quash the order therein confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras-7, in U.L.T. Case No. 4 of 1385-Korattur, dated 23.6.1978.Similar prayers have been made in W.P.Nos.4173, 4174 and 4175 of 1982...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1988
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ167
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam made in A.S.No. 124 of 1987, reversing that of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No. 262 of 1982. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed. Whether a valid marriage can be inferred from a mere recital of relationship in a document, in the absence of any proof of the form and ceremonies of marriage?The learned Judge, who admitted the appeal, directed the appeal to he posted on 20.6.1988 for final disposal. Consequently when the application for stay came up before me, I directed counsel on both sides to argue the appeal, and after some adjournments, the appeal was argued today. 2. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession on the ground that they are the children of Thambithurai, who was the owner of the suit property. According to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-14-1988
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ302
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 7647 of 1973, VII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid against the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,883-95 comprised of Rs. 4,993-95 towards the value of goods short delivered and interest thereon at six per cent per annum from 24-10-1970 to 24-10-1973, amounting to Rs. 890 and for future interest at six per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.2. The circumstances under which the appellant sought the recovery of the amounts as aforesaid are under: A consignment of 111 drums and 1 bag of sodium nitrate was entrusted by the State Trading Corporation of India with the railway at Wadi Bunder to be carried to Salt Cotaurs as per railway receipt No. 588574 dated 31-8-1970. When the appellant was the owner of the goods sought to obtain delivery, it was found that there was a shortge of 17 quintals and the appellant also obtained from the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1988
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ398
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. R. Annamalai of Veppankulam (via) Kallal, Ramnad District is the petitioner in W.P.No. 1720 of 1983. The Collector of Ramnad at Madurai; the Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai; and the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare, Madras are the respondents in W.P.No. 1720 of 1983. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the second respondent comprised in RCO-A/1469-82, dated 20.1.1983 and the 4(1) Notification of the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 2819, S.W.D. dated 24-11-1982, published at page 25 of the Extraordinary issue of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 8-12-1982, with respect to the acquisition of the lands of the petitioner in S.No. 126/1C and S.No. 126/78 of Veppankulam village, Karaikudi Taluk, Ramnad District.2. R. Krishnamurthi, Theli Village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot District is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2199 of 1983. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by under Secretary to Government, Social Welfare ...
Tag this Judgment!