Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-21-1994
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ524
Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals arise out of common judgment in O.P. Nos. 801 and 802 of 1992 and Application Numbers 5547 and 5548 of 1992, on the file of the Original Side. The learned single Judge has dismissed the original petitions and consequently held that the first respondent before him in each of the original petitions was entitled to a decree in terms of the awards passed by the second respondent/ arbitrator. Thus, the two applications before him were ordered by him.2. The facts are shortly thus: Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, which is hereinafter referred to as the appellant, invited tenders for supply of rice in May, 1989. The first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 284 and 287 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the first respondent, and the first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 285 and 286 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the second respondent, submitted the tenders. After negotiations, they entered into agreements on 16.6.1989 and on 23.6....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-23-1994
Reported in : I(1995)DMC418
Jayasimba Babu, J.1. This application is for direction to the respondent to hand over and settle the immovable property of Plot No. 1151 First Block Lane 33, Anna Nagar, Madras measuring one ground and 975 sq,. ft. in the names of the two daughters of the applicant and the respondent--Sumangala born on 18.3.73 and Suganya born on 17.9.74,2. 'The Original Matrimonial Suiit No. 19/93 has been filed by the applicant herein against the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery. Applicant is a Christian, Indian Citizen resident in India and is presently employed as Professor of Medicine at the Annamalai University at Chidambaram. Respondent who is also a Doctor was a Hindu and had converted to Christianity prior to her marriage with the petitioner which was solemnised at the St. Mathais Church, Vepery Madras on 20th May, 1971, has reverted to her original religion, and though still an Indian National i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1994
Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
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!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-17-1994
Reported in : (1994)IMLJ438
Raju, J.1. The above writ petitions involve 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. Writ Petition No. 1953 of 1992 as the amended prayer stands, has been filed by two medical practitioners (husband and wife) for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from exercising their jurisdiction against the medical practitioners on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1994
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-17-1994
Reported in : (1994)2MLJ487
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In the Original Petition which is filed for declaration of nullity of the marriage by the wife, it is stated by her that the first respondent who was married by her on 25.8.1985 was a lunatic at the time of marriage. She has impleaded the parents of the first respondent as respondents 2 and 3 in the original petition. All the three respondents remained ex parte.2. The petitioner has given evidence as P.W. 1 she has spoken to the fact that ever since the marriage she noticed that the first respondent was taking medicines which will be normally taken by a lunatic. It is specifically stated by her that he was taking eskazine and pasipal which are medicines prescribed for psychiatric conditions. She has also deposed that his behaviour was not that of a normal person and he will be aggressive and violent at times and used to apologise when it subsides. He was not attending to the duty regularly. She took him to P.W. 2 who was professor of psychiatric Department in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Mad383
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This batch of 'sea-sional writ petitions' if we may say so, challenges the selection of students for theprofessional courses in the year 1994-95. Thanks to the spasmodic brain waves of the persons in charge of education in the State, higher education has become a fertile breed-.ing ground for litigation. Aspirants for higher studies with dreams of a bright prosperous future are made to undertake a pilgrimage to the temple of justice with prayers to fulfil their desires. It was only four years ago, the State Government attempted to introduce a system of awarding five bonus marks to applicants for professional courses if they happened to be the first in their families to apply for such admission and there was no single graduate among the members of their families on the day of the application. This Court had no (to) strike down the G.O. as unconstitutional. This year, the Government decided to shower their blessings on sportsmen at all levels by generously awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!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!