Chennai Court October 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sharda Silicate and Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT20(Mad)
Koshal, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of three petitions, viz, W.P. Nos. 1234, 1304 and 1491 of 1972, the facts giving rise to which may be briefly stated. The petitioner in each of them is a firm known as M/s. Sharada Silicate and Chemical Industries, Coimbatore. It manufactures and sells sodium silicate on which excise duty is leviable in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on an ad valorem basis. It has been selling its product at different rates to different customers, of whom there are three main categories. In the first category fall soap manufacturers who purchase all their requirements of sodium silicate from the petitioner firm. The second category consists of soap manufacturers who purchase sodium silicate from the petitioner firm as well as from other concerns. The third category comprises parties other than soap manufacturers. Customers falling in the first category are sole suppliers of sodiu...
R. Govindaswamy Vs. Bhoopalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ206
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant as also the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The respondents filed a suit for a declaration of their title and for recovery of possession. Their case was that the suit site originally belonged to one Subramani, the father of the respondents and after him the site was leased by his wife Amirthammal in favour of the appellant. The lease was stated to be some time in the year 1956 on a monthly rent of] Rs. 5. Later on, it is stated that it was increased gradually upto Rs. 20. On the ground that the appellant failed to pay the rent, the respondents issued a notice terminating the tenancy and called upon the appellant to surrender possession. Of course, at the time when the notice was issued, the respondents claimed that the superstructure also was put up by them and it belonged to them. But when they filed the suit, they gave up their claim to the superstructure and contended that they are entitled to recover pos...
Seethai Mills Ltd. Vs. N.V. Perumalaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad177
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of Mohan. J. in Application No. 1239/75 in Company Petition No. 96/74 dismissing the said application for re-transfer of C. S. No. 113/75 on the file of this Court to the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for trial and disposal.2. O. S. No. 3032/66 was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 17,093.06 being the value of cotton supplied to the appellant. As the appellant was absent, an ex parte decree was passed on 30-3-1967 by the learned City Civil Judge. For non-payment of the decree amount, proceedings under the Company law for winding up also were started in this Court. While so, Application No. 757/75 was filed by the respondent herein on the original side of this Court for transfer of the proceedings, namely, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and another application for excusing the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, to the High Court along with O. S. No. 3032/66, in...
Seethai Mills Ltd., by Present Managing Director M.J. Dorai Raj Vs. N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ270
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of Mohan, J. in Application No. 1239 of 1975 in Company Petition No. 96 of 1974 dismissing the said application for re-transfer of C.S. No. 113 of 1975 on the file of this Court to the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for trial and disposal.2. O.S. No. 3032 of 1966 was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 17,093-06 being the value of cotton supplied to the appellant. As the appellant was absent, an ex parte decree was passed on 30th March, 1967 by the learned City Civil Judge. For nonpayment of the decree amount, proceedings under the company law for winding up also were started in this Court. While so, Application No. 757 of 1975 was filed by the respondent herein on the original side of this Court for transfer of the proceedings, namely, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and another application for excusing the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree to the High Court...
Nachimuthu Chettiar and anr. Vs. Moorthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ40
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an order passed by the executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure declaring the sale held on 25th June, 1973 in E.P. No. 135 of 1972 to be void and without jurisdiction, which has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. The first appellant herein obtained a mortgage decree against the respondent herein in O.S. No. 546 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet. Thereafter he applied for the sale of the hypotheca. The respondent appeared by a lawyer in the said execution proceedings. By an order dated 6th June, 1972 the sale of 4.37 acres of the respondent's lands was ordered to be held on 7th August, 1972. As there were no bidders on that day, an application was filed by the decree-holder for reduction of the upset price, and the upset price was actually reduced to Rs. 17,000 in the said application and the sale, was ordered to be held on 21st November, 1972. Even ...
E. Retnamma Pillai Thankachi Vs. P. Kamalam Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ186
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of the year 1865. He claimed that the suit was not barred by limitation on the ground that there was an assignment of the mortgage to the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents under Exhibit A-8 dated 2nd June, 1898 and a later purakkadom (subsequent charge) of the same year and also a subsequent acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees on 14th October, 1912.2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees made on 14th October, 1912 will save the suit from the bar of limitation. It is well-settled that an acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees will not give a fresh starting point of limitation. As early as in Vaikunta Bhakta v. Kunni Pakki Beari (1909) 19 M.L.J. 288, a Division Bench of this Court held following an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhogilal v. Amritlal I.L.R.(1893) 17 Bom. 173, that an acknowl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›