Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-21-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC620; (1998)IIIMLJ741
order1. the petitioners/landlords who failed in their attempt to get the order of eviction before the authorities below, have filed the above revisions.2. there are six portions in the building in question and five tenants are occupying the said building in the respective portions. according to the petitioners, on 31.10.1984, the then prime minister of india was assassinated at new delhi and an unprecedented violence in the city of coimbatore had sparked off. the building belonging to the petitioners which is in the occupation of the tenants was also attacked by goondas who set fire to the building, due to which the building suffered extensive damage. on the basis that the building had suffered substantial damage which is permanent in nature and it is unfit for the purpose of occupation and also on the ground that the petitioners proposed to erect a new modern building in the site, filed r.c.o.p.nos.366 to 391 of 1984 to the effect that they require the building bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. it is stated specifically that the petitioners have capacity to construct such a building. they have also given undertaking which is required under the provisions of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act herein after called as 'the act'. but, we are concerned in these revisions only with respect to r.c.o.p.nos.367, 368 and 370 of 1984, filed on the file of the learned rent controller, coimbatore. the respective tenants in these r.c.o.ps. filed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-30-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC465; (1998)IIMLJ450
order1. in these four writ petitions, the grievance being almost similar and a common counter has been filed by the respondents, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. the petitioner in w.p.nos.3021 & 3022 of 1998 being same, in one petition, he is seeking for declaring the auction notice published in daily thanthi, dated.15.2.1998, insofar as it relates to the licence to display advertisements, through television sets in tirunelveli municipal corporation central bus stand, as illegal and in another petition he is seeking for renewal of the licence, on accepting the enhanced rent of 15% for a block period of three years.3. the petitioner in w.p.nos.3023 & 3024 of 1998 being same, has, in one petition, sought for declaring the auction notice published in daily thanthi on 15.2.1998 insofar as it relates to the licence to instal weighing machines in platforms 1 to 3 of the central bus stand, thirunelveli and in another petition he has sought for renewal of the said licence after accepting the enhanced rent of 15%.4. the petitioner in w.p.nos.3021 and 3022 of 1998 was a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the thirunelveli municipal corporation for the year 1993-94 and he was allotted a space measuring an extent of 16x16 sq.ft. for the purpose of putting up a 'room' from which the petitioner can operate the 'television sets' installed by him in the three platforms. he has been displaying advertisements through medium of television in accordance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : 96CompCas272(Mad); 1998(1)CTC555
order1. the petitioners herein are seeking for quashing the order of respondent no.2 passed in o.a.no.47 of 1996 dated 31.7.1997. respondent no.l herein filed an original application in o.a.no.47 of 1996 before the debts recovery tribunal at chennai against the petitioners for recovery of total sum of rs.1,20,74,804, i.e. rs.16,71,823 under medium term lone, rs.44.40,447 under secured loan facility, rs.30,47,136 under the secured loan and rs.29,15,398 with interest at 25.25% per annum for all the loans with quarterl rests from the date of application till the date of realisation and for the sale of 'a' schedule immovable property and with costs. petitioner no.2 is the sister of petitioner no.1, who has guaranteed the repayment of advance granted to her brother, the petitioner no.1. it is the case of the bank before the tribunal that they have acknowledged their liability and confirmed the balance due, in their letters dated 21.12.93, 29.1.94 respectively and didnot settle the loan dues inspite of repeated requests and demands and lawyer notices were also issued to them on 30.3.93, 24.8.93 and 30.8.96. though they acknowledged these notice, they did not send any reply for the same. however, petitioner no.1 sent the reply on 10.9.1996 and petitioner no.2 sent the reply on 7.10.1996 denying their liability. the tribunal accorded a finding that the applicant bank is entitled to get the recovery certificate as prayed for with interest at the rate of 25.25.% p.a. with annually .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-30-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC65; (1998)IIIMLJ554
order1. this revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india by the proposed defendants in a suit which is proposed to be filed by the respondents herein under section 92(1) of the code of civil procedure. the respondents herein obtained leave for the institution of the suit under section 92(1) of the code of civil procedure against the petitioner.2. i do not want to give a detailed history of the litigation except for the statement that the respondents herein alleged various acts of mismanagement of the public trust.3. the petitioners herein opposed the grant of consent and the main reason for the same is that there is already a suit pending before the court and therefore a second suit for the very same relief is unnecessary. it is also contended that in an earlier suit, the plaintiffs therein moved for some interim relief and the same was not granted as sought for by them and the proposed suit is only an another attempt to get the very same relief by filing a separate suit.4. it is the further case that the proposed suit to be filed is not bona fide and intended only to harass the public trust. it is also said that there is no proper application of mind while passing the impugned order and it is also stated that the various objections raised by the petitioner were not taken into consideration by the courts below. according to the senior counsel, it is fit case to invoke article 227 of the constitution of india.5. in substance, the contention is that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-03-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC172
order1. when the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing as agreed bythe learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned additional advocategeneral for the respondents, the main writ petition itself is taken up for finalhearing.2. the brief facts are: the petitioner association, in this writ petitionseeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records made inna.ka.no.105532/c22/96 dated 2.10.1996 passed by the second respondentand to quash the same and pass such other orders.3. the petitioner association is a registered one. it has been started for the purpose of advocating the grievance of hindu educational institutions throughout the state of tamil nadu. it is stated in the affidavit that all the members of the petitioner association are receiving grant from the government of tamil nadu and that they are scrupulously following the tamil nadu recognised private schools regulation act and the rules framed thereunder. it is further stated that the petitioner schools are functioning efficiently and their teaching standards and the quality of education are remarkable.4. petitioner submits that as per g.o.ms.no.1138 dated 25.9.1978, the schools should recruit its personnel only through employment exchange by way of notifying the vacancies and also resort to any other form of recruitment, after obtaining a non-available certificate from the concerned employment exchange. it is further stated that g.o.ms.no.778 dated 19.5.1979 permitted the school management .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-13-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC718; (1998)IIIMLJ481
order1. the respective defendants who suffered decree before the courts below have filed the above second appeal.2. the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the ayacutdars of authoor tank and channel filed the suit in o.s.no. 76 of 1979 on the file of the sub-court, tuticorin seeking a declaration that the ayacutdar of authoor tank and channel are entitled to the entire water in authur channel and tank and also to issue consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, its men, agents, servants from interfering in any manner with the supply of water to authur tank through authur channel and for declaration that the order passed by the collector in roc.a.9.156933 of 1978 dated 31.1.1979 is illegal and unsustainable in law and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the structure that has been put up during october 1978 and january 1979 at the point 'z' in the plaint plan. the plaintiffs filed the present suit on the basis of the dismissal of the suit in o.s.no.6 of 1913, sub-court, tuticorin in the judgment dated 31.1.1917. the said suit was filed by rameswaram devasthanam against the ayacutdars of authur tank. the defendants defended the present suit on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the prayer sought for and the collector is having jurisdiction to regulate the channel. the trial court though held that the plaintiffs cannot claim any absolute right with respect to the authoor tank and channel, decreed the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-05-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC1; (1998)IIMLJ580
orderjudgement pronounced by shivaraj patil, j.1. these cases are placed before us for disposal on reference made by a division bench of this court on 10.1.1996.2. the question that came up for consideration before the division bench was, whether the canteen run in the second respondent factory, which is statutorily obligatory, can be treated as part and parcel of the establishment of the management, or it can be treated as an independent entity, not coming under the management, and thereby the workmen working therein not becoming the members of the establishment of the management.3. a division bench of this court, in workmen employed in the canteen run by s.r.f. ltd., madras v. government of tamil nadu and others, 1995 (1) l.l.n. 487 took the view that the canteen is run by the contractor or a co-operative society; the employer in relation to the workers engaged in the canteen will be the contractor or the society, as the case may be, and not the proprietor of the factory, and in such cases all the claims of the canteen employees have to be met by the contractor or the co-operative society as the case may be; and the mere fact that the s.r.f. company has the responsibility to provide and maintain a canteen for their workmen under section 46 of the factories act, will not make them automatically the employer of the canteen employees in all cases and for all purposes.4. the apex court in parimal chandra raha and others v. life insurance corporation of india and others, 1995 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-14-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC434
order1. these revisions are filed by the defendant in o.s. no. 132 of 1998 on the file of the principal subordinate judge, erode. the suit mentioned abovefiled by the respondents restraining the defendant, his men agents and power agents from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; for payment of costs by the defendants and such other further remedies.2. the description of the property as found in the schedule to the plaintiff reads thus:'erode registration district, erode sub registration district, erode town, within the erode municipal limits, original old s.f.nos.100 a1, 100 c1 old s.f.no.85/2, 85/3, 85/4 resurvey ward a block 15 t.s.no.2, 3, 4. in this the land and the sheds put up. within the following boundaries: south of the bus stand road north of the land of thangamuthu vaigars east of royal thetre west of the land and passage of the municipality, with all the purtenances and all the other easementary rights in an area of 0.56307 square metres'. 3. in the plaint it is stated that the plaint properties are their ancestral properties. the properties were originally purchased by one arumugha mudaliar and a.marimuthy mudaliar who are the sons of arunachala mudaliar, on 4.5.1942. subsequently, the two brothers divided the properties along with other properties on 31.12.1956. a schedule properties were allotted to the share of arumugha mudaliar and b schedule properties were allotted to the share of marimuthu mudaliar. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC510; (1998)IIMLJ183
order1. the first respondent in c.r.p. no. 1413 of 1997 is the landlord. he has leased out the property to the second respondent in the said crp. he has filed rcop no. 30 of 1989 on the file of the rent controller, tirunelveli to evict the petitioner herein on the ground that the second respondent had sub-leased the property to the petitioner and the petitioner being a sub-lessee without the consent of the landlord, is liable to be evicted. it is the case of the petitioner that she is closely related to the second respondent and she was residing with her family with the second respondent in the petition premises. the first respondent had to shift to bombay in january 1989 and hence on21.12.88, she along with the second respondent met the first respondent and requested for the occupation of the building by the petitioner and the first respondent agreed for the same and she is residing as a tenant in the premises. the rent controller as well as the appellate authority found that the petitioner is a sub-lessee and ordered eviction. as against the said order of the lower authorities the present revision has been filed.2. the petitioner in c.r.p. no. 1414 of 1997 filed rcop.no.39 of 1989 seeking permission to deposit the rent into court, since the landlord refused to receive the rent. the rent controller found that the petitioner is not the tenant and as such the application filed by her is not maintainable. the appellate authority also concurred with the finding and dismissed the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-1998
Reported in : (1998)IIMLJ406
orders.m. abdul wahab, j. 1. these two civil revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 29-3-1996 in i.a. no. 345 of 1992 in h.m.o.p. no. 16 of 1992 and i.a. no. 1.179 of 1995 in o.s. no. 1297 of 1995 on the file of the principal subordinate judge, tiruchirapalli.2. the aforesaid two petitions were filed by the husband against the wife. first one is for sending the respondent for medical examination to find out whether she remained virgin, while the other one was for direction against her to produce the letters written by the petitioner to her,3. the short facts leading to this peculiar type of petitions are as follows: the petitioner was a divorcee and after he contracted the marriage again with the respondent on 14-12-1991 and the same was registered on 16-12-1991. even though they lived together for some time happily at madras, the respondent went away from the matrimonial home. hence, he has filed hmop no. 16 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the hindu marriage act, 1955. as a counter blast, the respondent filed o.s. no. 1297 of 1995 for declaration that her marriage with the petitioner is void.4. the defence was that the attempt of the petitioner was only to harass and humiliate the respondent. there is no necessity for examining her medically and for production of the letters. she also contended that there was no bona fide at all in the two petitions. the petitioner committed fraud by misrepresenting to her that she would be taken .....Tag this Judgment!