Chennai Court October 1978 Judgments
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division Vs. Mohame ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS142D
ORDERSuryamurthy, J.1. Appeal under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 against the judgment of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai in C. Case No. 98 of 1974 on the 27th day of June, 1975.This appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the record of the evidence and proceedings before the said lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Ilias Ali for Mr. Habi-bullah Badsha the Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Appellant herein and the respondent (Accused No. 2) not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court delivered the following Judgment:This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate of Kulitalai in C.C. No. 98 of 1974 on the file of his Court, convicting the accused (Respondent) under Section 135(ii) of the Customs Act and Section 85(H) of the Gold Control Act, and sentencing him on the first Court to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in de...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Tubes and Malleables Ltd. Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad215; (1979)1MLJ313
1. In these civil revision petitions the question which arises for consideration is a very simple one. Iron pipes were purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from a third party and it booked the same through the railway belonging to the petitioner-Union of India, at Tatanagar, the station of destination being Bangalore and other places. It is common ground in all these cases that there was short delivery certificate was issued to the consignor in all these cases. Except in one case where the Insurance Company has subrogated itself, in the place of the consignor, the plaintiff-respondent is the same in all the petitions. I shall deal with the relevant facts in two sets of cases, as similar points arise in them. CRP 3510 of 1976 is against the judgment of the New Trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in connection with the despatch of iron pipes from Tatanagar to Bangalore. The goods arrived at Bangalore in or about Nov. 1970, and open delivery certificate was issued on 17-11-1...
Tag this Judgment!Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS62D; 1979(4)ELT86(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. These writ petitions raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944 - hereinafter referred to as the Act). The following facts may be stated in order to appreciate the controversy involved.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and having its registered office at No. 1 Middleton St. Calcutta. It is engaged in the manufacture, among other things, of electric dry batteries, for which purpose it has factories in several places in India, Two of such factories are in Tiruvottiyor and Guindy, Madras. Electric dry batteries are goods which are excisable under the Act under Item No. 31(1) of the First Schedule to the Act.3. The batteries manufactured by the petitioner are removed from the factory on payment of excise duty in accordance with the self-removal procedure to their sales godowns situated in different parts of India from where they are sold to ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugham and 3 ors. Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ558
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The issue involved whether in the appellate Court a Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of Ending out the physical features and of the location of the channel, particularly when the matter was pending in the trial Court and there had been two inspections, one on 19th November. 1974 and the other on 12th December, 1974. It appears that the I.A. No. 601 of 1976 was filed by the respondent herein for the same purpose, for which the present commission is being issued. But it was dismissed on 19th November, 1976, since the respondent herein did not press for the same. On this Mr. Thyagaraja Iyer pleads that when the very aspect now involved has already, been posed before the trial Court in I.A. No. 601 of 1976, and the respondent herein having not interested himself in asking for the Commissioner to again visit the property, the appellate Court was not justified in directing the appointment of the Commissioner. He contends that there is no jurisdiction in the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Jaihind Roadways, a Proprietory Concern, Represented by Proprietor Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ338
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant on the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to try the action in question. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,190 against the petitioner, which was a common carrier basing his cause of action on a tort. The claim of the plaintiff was that goods which were entrusted by his seller at Bombay for carriage to Madras and delivery to the plaintiff were not delivered by the carrier intact and there was a shortage in the course of such delivery and evaluating the damage based on such alleged tort committed by the carrier on account of the negligence on the part of the carrier while discharging his obligations under the contract of affreightment, the plaintiff quantified the damage suffered by him at Rs. 1,026 and sought for interest thereon at six per cent per annum. The main contention, amongst others, of the carrier was that under the contract of affreightment, which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Tawker and anr. Vs. Shanmughavalli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ323
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. In petition filed by the tenants who secured the benefits under the City Tenants' Protection Act for a direction to the landlords to convey the land to them as per the directions of the principal Court which went into the matter regarding the entitlement of the tenants, the question which arose was whether the tenants-respondents were entitled to such a conveyance from the landlords without the tenants paying the interest on the amount payable by them on the amount fixed by the principal Court. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras before whom such matters as provided for under Section 9(3) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 come up, was of the view that the landlords are bound to execute the conveyance inasmuch as the tenants have complied with the directions issued by the principal Court when it disposed of the petitions under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act.2. In this case, the principal Court, in the sense, the Court which principally...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnan Vs. Aruna and Associates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ1
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against an order of the learned City Civil Judge, who allowed an amendment of the plaint which amendment was under the following circumstances, as mentioned by the Court below:.It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 24,711-30 due. to him as charge for construction work carried on by him. It is also stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff's firm was a partnership and that the partnership' was dissolved on 22nd February, 1972. After the dissolution the plaintiff was carrying on the business as the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm. At the time of the institution of the suit this fact was not brought to the notice of the counsel. The firm has been running by the plaintiff as the sole proprietor. Hence he prays that the plaint should be suitably amended and that the long cause title should be permitted to be suitably amended.2. Messrs. Aruna and Associates was,...
Tag this Judgment!C. Hajee Abdul Khalique Sahib and Company and anr. Vs. the State of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC261(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The former appeal comes up for final disposal and the latter appeal comes up for admission. Both these appeals arise out of a common order of the Board of Revenue. In the former appeal, the disputed turnover is Rs. 4,03,175.97 and, in the latter appeal, the disputed turnover is Rs. 8,74,074.00 and the appellants contended that the said two turnovers referred to above were turnovers of export sales and that, therefore, they are not liable to sales tax. The assessing officer declined to accept this contention relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Coffee Board, Bangalore v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras : [1970]3SCR147 , which itself was followed in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa : AIR1975SC1564 . However, on appeal preferred by the appellants, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) III, Madras, held that the local exporting houses, who exported tanned skins, did so only on behalf of the appellants and that, therefore, the respective turnovers were...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.P. Raja Sekara Bhoopathy Vs. Navaneethammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ144
T. Ramaprasada Rao, CJ.1. The landlord of property No. 1/75, Chellappa Mudali Street, Perambur Barracks, Madras is the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that one Ratnavel Chettiar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein, took on lease the above property (land) belonging to the petitioner in or about 1935 and put up a construction in the said land prior to 1955. The petitioner's further case is that when Rathnavel Chettiar was alive, he executed a fresh lease, Exhibit P-1, dated 9th March, 1960, in and by which Rathnavel Chettiar agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 75 per month against the original rent of Rs. 14 per month which was enhanced from time to time. Thereafter there were certain proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, between the petitioner and the successors-in-interest of the said Rathnavel Chettiar, and it is stated that in or about 1965, the respondents surrendered a portion of the land, and were prepared to pay a further inc...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.A. Ct. V. Ct. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A. Ct. V. Ct. Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad105
Varadarajan, J. 1. This petition under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the Appellant for amendment of the plaint by omitting the words (1) -and nothing more' occurring in para 8, (2) 'and pay the Plaintiff the amounts that are still with him less the amounts already paid' occurring in para 9 and (3) 'much more will be due' occurring in pars, 12 of the plaint.2. The petitioner's suit before the Sub Court, Devakottai was for directing the respondent-defendant to render account of all the transactions made by the defendant as the plaintiff's agent from 22-1-1965 and also for all the amounts received by the Defendant on the plaintiffs behalf as his agent including the amount received from one Alagappa and to pay the petitioner whatever may be found to be due to him. According to the plaint the plaiintiff, the defendant and their two brothers Alagappa and Annamalai were partners of A. -K. A. CT. V. Firm carrying on business at Kualalumpur each of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »