Advanced Search Results

A.K. Subbaraja and Others Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 2 and 3; Non-pressure Stoves (Quality Control) Order, 1990; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19; Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 100; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 25

Reported in : AIR1994Mad104

Advocate for Respondent : Habibullah Badsha,; for Nurjahan Razack, Addl. C.G.S.C.

ORDER1. The petitioners, who are the manufacturers of kerosene non-pressure wick stoves, which according to them, constitute the cheapest heating media in a common man's kitchen, have jointly filed the above writ petition for a writ...

Venkateshwara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries Vs. U.O.i.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 25(2) and 27; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8(1)

Reported in : 1991(53)ELT312(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : Narasimhan, C.G.S.C.

S. Mohan, Off. C.J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the order passed by our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., in W.P. No. 4062 to 4067 of...

Non Ferrous Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 9A(3A), 10, 56A, 56A(3) and 173J; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A; General Clauses Act - Sections 6

Reported in : 1991(34)ECC179; 1991LC272(Madras); 1991(52)ELT487(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : Shri P. Narasimhan, ;Sr. C.G.S.C.

ORDER1. These two writ petitions may be considered together since they involve common issues both on facts and law. W.P. No. 9525 of 1982 has been filed for issue of A Writ of Certiorari to quash...

Union Trading Company Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Subject : Customs

Acts : Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Reported in : 1996(56)ECC92; 1996(82)ELT20(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Jayachandran, A.C.G.S.C.

ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions themselves have been taken up for final hearing, since the points involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of...

S. Srinivasan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bharat Overseas B ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : ServiceBanking

Acts : Consitution of India -- Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 -- Sections 10 B (4) & BB, 35 B (B), 36 AA, A & B; Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 -- Sections 42 (6); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 -- Sections 46A; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Companies Act, 1956 -- Sections 58A and 617; Banking Companies Act, 1980

Reported in : 2000(2)CTC41

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. K. Chandru, Senior Counsel, ;Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel, ;Mr. Habibullah Basha, Senior Counsel and ;Mr. G. Subramaniam, Senior Counsel

ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above three writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as these writ appeals have been filed against the same order of a learned single...

Coimbatore Texcity Share Brokers Association and Another Vs. Union of ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 3, 4 and 13; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 41(1); Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules - 1957, Rule 8(1)

Reported in : [1993]77CompCas29(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ401

Advocate for Respondent : Illias Ali, S.C., and ;Habibullah Badsha and ;Shakir Ali, Advs.

ORDERAbdul Hadi J.1. W.A. No. 1275 of 1991 is by the writ petitioner, the Coimbator Texcity Share Brokers Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tex Association'), against the dismissal order dated September 24, 1991, of Bakthavatsalam...

Indian Institute of Human Resources Development Vs. National Institute ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : ArbitrationCompany

Reported in : (1992)IIMLJ168

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. T. Chengalvaroyan ;for Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Adv.;Mr. Habibullah Badsha and ;Mr. N.A.K. Sarma, Advs.

Misra, J. 1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment in Application No. 6887 of 1990 in C.S. No. 1307 of 1990, granting interim injunction restraining the appellant/respondent, its...

Seaways Shipping Ltd. Having Its Office at Ii Floor, Rahmat Manzil, 51 ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Constitution of India -- Article 14,19(1)and 226; Major Port Trust Act, 1963 -- Sections 28, 34(1), 42(1), 42(3), 111 and 133; Madras Port Trust Act, 1905 -- Sections 123; Indian Ports Act, 1908

Reported in : 1998(3)CTC318

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. A.L. Somayaji,;Senior Counsel, for M/s. Aiyar and;Dolia Adv.,;Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy,;Senior Counsel, for M/s. Rangarajan and;Prabhakaran Adv.,;Mr. Habibullah Badsha,;Senior Counsel, for M/s. M. Se

ORDER1. This judgment shall govern writ petition Nos.9469 and 9470 of 1998 as the parties are common and also the controversy involved. Common petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act which carries its...

Sun Tv Limited Vs. Tata Sky Limited and the Telecom Disputes Appellate ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Media and Communication

Acts : India Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997 - Sections 14 and 15; ;Telecom Interconnection Regulation Act, 2004; Original Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 - Sections 28; Constitution of Indian - Articles 226, 227, 323A and 323B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 11

Reported in : (2007)5MLJ277

Advocate for Respondent : A.L. Somayaji, Adv. for ;S. Ramasubramanian and Assts. for 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 12826 of 2007 and ;Habibullah Badsha, Sr. Counsel for ;S. Ramasubramanian and Assts. for 1st Respondent in W.P. No

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. While W.P. No. 12827 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the second respondent in Petition No. 291 (C) of 2006 and to quash the same, W.P. No....

Mspl Gases Limited Rep. by Its Senior Manager (Sales) Mr. D. Ramesh Ba ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act - Section 18; Constitution of India - Article 14, Constitution of India - Article 226

Advocate for Respondent : Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for A. Ilango, Adv. for R1, R. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Counsel for A. Ilango, Adv. for RR2 and 3, K. Harishankar, Adv. for R4, Habibullah Basha, Sr Counsel for C. Manishankar, Adv. for R5

A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The facts involved in the cases on hand is as follows:(i) The first respondent herein is Steel Authority of India (SAIL), which is registered as a government company under the provisions of Companies...