Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 11 of about 141 results (0.043 seconds)

Mar 18 1998 (HC)

Tata Tea Ltd., Regional Office Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ306

orderk. sampath, j.1. the prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records before the second respondent ending with the order c.l.a.d. dis t.i.5273/84, dated 29.3.1988 and quash the same.2. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:an extent of about 1056.06 acres of disafforested area in anamalai hills was assigned by the then government of madras in g.o.ms. no. 932 on 10.5.1929 to m/s. anglo american direct tea trading company ltd.3. the material terms of the grant are as follows:(i) the land shall be used only for the cultivation of coffee, tea, cocoa, chilnchona, cardamoms, pepper, rubber or any other product that the government may by special orders recognise as a plantation product, or for the erection of any buildings or constructing any roads thereon, which may be necessary for effecting and supervising such cultivation and preparing the produce for markets.(ii) in areas where forest growth is cleared, the grantee shall plant plantation crops within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the collector of coimbatore in each case.(iii) the grantee shall pay the cost of surveying the land. he shall keep the boundaries clear of forest growth and maintain the survey marks in accordance with the provisions of the madras survey and boundaries act.(iv) except on the area occupied by public roads or branch roads declared as public, the grantee shall pay assessment at the rate of rs. 3 an acre on lands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1998 (HC)

R. Surendirakumar Vs. C. Balaji Singh and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ475

r. balasubramanian, j.1. there were three rent control petitions being r.c.o.p. no. 48 of 1988, r.c.o.p. no. 49 of 1988 and r.c.o.p. no. 51 of 1988 on the file of the rent controller (district munsif) tirupattur. the petitioner in each of these three cases is the same landlord. the respondent in each of these three cases are three separate tenants respectively. in all these three cases, eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for owner's occupation of a non-residential building from each of the tenant. the rent controller agreed with the landlord in all the three cases on both the grounds and ordered eviction. each of the tenant filed three independent appeals and that were taken on file as r.c.a. no. 4 of 1992, r.c.a. no. 5 of 1992 and r.c.a. no. 3 of 1992. all the three appeals were allowed on merits and therefore these revisions before this court namely, c.r.p. no. 3137 of 1993, c.r.p. no. 3145 of 1993 and c.r.p. no. 3577 of 1993.2. i heard mr. r.m. krishna raja, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in each of these three revisions and mr. v. ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of these three revisions. according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the appellate authority had completely erred in law and on facts in reversing the order of the rent controller, when the landlord had made out the case the grounds of eviction in each of these three cases. according to him, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 1998 (HC)

Gopala Gounder Vs. Kasi Ammal and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-02-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ250

s.s. subramani, j.1. the only substantial question of law formulated for consideration at the time of admission of second appeal reads thus:whether the lower appellate court, while rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for maintenance, has not committed an error of law in granting maintenance to 2nd respondent who is not the legitimate son of the appellant even as per the lower appellate court?2. defendant in o.s. no. 595 of 1989 on the file of district munsif's court, gingee, is the appellant herein.3. suit was filed by his wife and minor son, claiming maintenance under section 18 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act.4. in this judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in the suit.5. first plaintiff claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant, and in their wedlock, second plaintiff was born to them. it is said that the marriage was according to custom prevalent in their community. it is also said in para 3 of plaint that at the instance of his first wife, defendant is not properly, looking after her affairs and also that of her son, and she has to maintain the second plaintiff only by doing hard labour. it is said that the defendant is bound to maintain them, and it is a moral as well as statutory obligation.6. in the written statement filed by defendant, he disputed the marriage. he was already married to the elder sister of first plaintiff in which he has got two daughters. when there was a first marriage existing, it was impossible .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1998 (HC)

Janaki Vs. V. Sundaram

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-22-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ546

orders.s. subramani, j.1. this revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india by the wife in o.p.no. 1328 of 1995, on the file of ii additional family judge, chennai. reason for filing this revision is only to bring to the notice of this court the procedural illegality committed by the family court in passing an ex parte order of divorce.2. a petition for divorce was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner, alleging that she had been cruel to him, and due to that cruelty, it is impossible for him to continue the marital relationship.3. a counter statement was filed by petitioner herein, denying the allegations and also setting out the reasons why there were differences of opinion between them.4. according to her, there was a persistent demand by the husband for getting amounts from her house, which she refused. it is also said that the husband was a drunkard and made the family life impossible. she also alleged that even though she had given birth to three daughters, they were also not being properly maintained. because of this cruelty, she had also moved the police and it is only in such circumstances, they had to live apart. she justified her action.5. when the revision petition came up for admission, i ordered notice of motion and the operation of the order was also stayed. the revision itself was filed on the very next day i.e., 28.10.1998 (impugned order is dated 27.10.1998). on 2.11.1998, i passed an order suspending the operation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1998 (HC)

Susila Vs. Rajagopala Pathar (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-20-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ726

a. ramamurthi, j.1. defendant has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in a.s.no. 64 of 1983, dated 12.12.1983 on the file of district court, east thanjavur, nagapattinam, confirming the decree and judgment of the court of the subordinate judge of mayiladuthurai in o.s.no. 127 of 1981, dated 18.2.1983.2. the case in brief is as follows: the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale or in the alternative of recovery of rs. 15,610 from the defendant. the plaintiff entered into a written agreement of sale in respect of the suit property with the defendant's father subba rao on 1.7.1976 agreeing to purchase the property for a sum of rs. 16,500. as per the agreement, the parties have to complete the sale by 15.2.1977. but time is not the essence of the contract. the plaintiff paid a sum of rs. 3,000 by way of advance even on the date of the agreement and later paid rs. 2,000 on 21.8.1976. rs. 1,500 on 26.2.1977 and rs. 1,000 on 1.7.1977 towards the agreement of sale. these payments were endorsed by the plaintiff's father on the agreement itself. the plaintiff also paid another sum of rs. 3,000 on 10.8.1977 with the defendant's father but the same was not endorsed in the agreement. thus in all, the plaintiff has paid a sum of rs. 10,500 towards the sale transaction. the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to pay the balance amount and complete the said sale transaction. the defendant's father was postponing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1998 (HC)

Periasamy Vs. Joseph Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-26-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ769

a. ramamurthi, j.1. the aggrieved defendant has filed the appeal against the judgment and decree in a.s.no. 36 of 1980 on the file of additional sub court, tuticorin, dated 22.7.1981 reversing the judgment and decree in o.s.no. 228 of 1977, dated 31.10.1979.2. the case in brief is as follows: the plaintiff filed suit, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant. the properties are a house bearing door no. 5-a at palayamkottai road, tuticorin with a vacant site with 2 small huts. the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 19 years and he has been directly paying the house tax and land tax. the properties were measured and survey stones have also been planted on the boundaries by the authorities. he has prescribed his title to the properties by adverse possession. the defendant is interfering with his possession and enjoyment. the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff in the panchayat board, tuticorin for recovery of arrears of rent and the case is also pending.3. the defendant resisted the suit, denying the title of the plaintiff. it is false to state that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 19 years and paying the municipality tax. the defendant has purchased the land in the property along with other properties on 23.8.1961 from one arumugasamy nadar, trustee of subbiah nadar dharmanidhi and president of subbiah vidyalayam sangam to whom it belonged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1998 (HC)

M. Sambandam Vs. the Deputy Registrar (Credit) Co-operative Societies ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-29-1998

Reported in : (1999)3MLJ310

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 31.8.1989 the petitioner has approached this court for quashing the said order on various grounds.2. according to the petitioner, he was a president of the second respondent-society in the year 1980 and continued the same position till april 1988 when the second respondent superseded the board and appointed a special officer. the second respondent society alleged that during the tenure as a president of the said society certain irregularities have taken place, consequently an enquiry under section 65 of the tamil nadu act 53 of 1961 was conducted by the special investigation squard of the registrar of co-operative societies office. a show-cause notice was issued to him and other members under section 71 on 11.11.1987. he gave a reply in person in the form of written explanation with 12 documents to substantiate the defence claim. no enquiry report was sent to him either along with the show-cause notice or later at any point of time. the first respondent has passed an order in his proceedings na.ka.6414/87 holding the petitioner ex parte and directed the petitioner and four other members to pay the surcharge of rs. 2,67,071.15 either jointly or severally. against the order of the first respondent he preferred an appeal before the special tribunal for co-operative societies in s.t.ca.no. 94 of 1988, the third respondent herein. before the tribunal the petitioner explained to the fact that he was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.T. Balakrishnan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-1998

Reported in : (1998)148CTR(Mad)618

n.v. balasubramaaman, j.in the above batch of tax cases, following questions of law arising under it act, 1961 as well as under the wt act, 1957 for certain assessment years in respect of some of the assessees have been referred to us for our consideration :tc no. 31 of 1982 :1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the property income of rs. 42,814 assessed by the ito in the hands of the assessee individual could not be sustained?2. whether the tribunal's finding that the conversion of property into that of huf and the subsequent partial partition was genuine is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case?3. even if the act of conversion of the individual property to huf property is held to be genuine and valid in law still whether the assessee is not liable to be assessed in respect of the income attributable to his interest in the converted property as per s. 64(2)(b) of the it act, 196l?'tc nos. 394 to 398 of 1983 and 399 of 1983:1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that income from a portion of door no. 301, t.h. road, madras allotted to assessee's (bose) sister ku. chandra could not be considered as his income and income from another portion of the same property allotted to the assessee himself under the partial partition dt. 27th july, 1970 could not be considered as his individual income?2. whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1998 (HC)

indumathi Vs. Krishnamurthy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-20-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC210; (1998)IIIMLJ435

order1. this revision petition is filed by respondent in marriage o.p.no.146 of 1997, on the file of family court at pondicherry. 2. petition for divorce under section 13(1)(iii) of the hindu marriage act was filed by the husband, hereinafter called the respondent, on 29.9.1997. in fact, the marriage between petitioner and respondent took place only on 4.9.1997, i.e., within a few days of marriage, petition for divorce was filed. along with that petition, respondent did not file an application seeking leave of the court to entertain the application. but, such an application was filed on 8.10.1997. in that application under section 14(1) of the hindu marriage act, he alleged certain reasons and also mentioned the hardship and injury which he will suffer if he has to wait for a period of one year from the date of marriage. both the main petition for divorce as well as the i.a. for exemption under section 14(1) of the act were numbered and summons were also issued to the petitioner by order of court on 27.10.1997. 3. in this revision, petitioner challenges the procedure followed by the family court in issuing summons when the application under section 14(1) of the act was not ordered, and it is further contended that without grant of leave in i.a., the main petition ought not to have been numbered. it is the further case of the petitioner that when the statute prohibits entertaining of the petition for divorce for a period of one year from the date of marriage, without grant of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1998 (HC)

Neyveli National Workers Union (Regd.No.286/Sat). Rep. by Its General ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-04-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC301; [1999(81)FLR1008]; (1999)ILLJ308Mad; (1999)IMLJ424

order1. this civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the proceedings no.aa2/pa.le.no.145/95, dated 21.1.1997 and issued on 9.6.1998 by the additional registrar-ii of trade unions and deputy commissioner of labour-ii, d.m.s. compound, teynampet, chennai-6.2. the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent cancelling the registration of the neyveli national workers union, the first appellant herein.3. the case of the first appellant is that the first appellant union was registered under the trade unions act, 1926, affiliated to indian national trade union congress (for short 'tntuc') having its head office at g.r. bhawan, ii floor, no.45, royapettah high road, chennai-14. the union was started with the object of securing rights, privilege and immunities and other protection to its member and also to maintain industrial peace in the neyveli lignite corporation limited, a government of india undertaking. the appellant's union branch is situated at no.d-12, mahathma gandhi road, block no.24, neyveli-1. the union was registered in the year 1976. after complying with the requirements and the provisions of the trade union act, a certificate was issued with registration no.286/sat. the union is affiliated to national trade union called indian national trade union congress and the affiliation number is 5264.4. the union submitted the annual report of 1996 in form 'e'. eventhough the annual report was submitted in the year 1996 in form 'e', nocommunication was .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //