Chennai Court March 1978 Judgments
In Re: Peer Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ429
ORDERPaul, J.1. The curious prayer in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is that I should give a direction to 15th Metropolitan Magistrate (1) to issue notice to the Asst, Public Prosecutor attached to that Court; (2) to give him only a day's notice in all bail applications, and (3) to decide the application under Section 101 of the Tamil bail applications within two days and not to adjourn them for days together. The learned Counsel for the petitioner session of the same and Anr. is to complains that in a particular matter lay a complaint before the Magistrate of bail, the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate did not issue notice to the Assistant Public Prosecutor but directed notice to be issued to the investigating officer and it took sometime for him to dispose of the bail application, I am not prepared to give any such general directions because it is a matter in which the Magistrate will have to follow the precedents and act according to law and in the interest of justice. It cann...
Tag this Judgment!Gordon Woodroffe and Co., Madras (P.) Ltd. Vs. C.D. Gopinath and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad374
1. This appeal arises out of an order of Natarajan J. in Appln. No. 3892 of 1977 declining to grant an interim injunction pending disposal of C. S. No. 450 of 1977 filed by the appellant herein as plaintiff.2. The circumstances under which the said suit came to be filed have been clearly and fully set out by Natarajan J, in the order under appeal and, therefore, it is not necessary to restate the same herein in elaborate detail and we will refer only to certain basic and salient facts. The appellant (plaintiff) was originally started as a partnership concern in 1868 but later converted into a limited company in 1924. It started as a subsidiary of Gordon Woodroffe Ltd., London which even now holds 79% of its shares. It has its registered office at Madras and branch offices at Kakinada and Vizagapattinam, for its steamer business. It was appointed as steamer agents of the Clan Line Steamers Ltd. in the year 1878, hereinafter referred to as Clan Line and the said agency was continued ever...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gopal Pondither Vs. the District Magistrate-cum-collector of Chingl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad413
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent (The District Magistrate-cum-Collector of Chingleput) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed on 19-8-1968, in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is the owner of the house and ground bearing No. 7/19, East Chetti St., St. Thomas Mount, Madras 16. In respect of the said house, the property tax was originally levied for the half-year at Rs. 138, on the annual rental valuation of Rs. 1200. On 6-4-1968, the Cantonment Executive Officer (the second respondent) sent a special notice enhancing the property tax to Rs. 414 on the basis of the annual rental of Rs. 3960 for the period from 1-4-1965. The petitioner made his representations on 2-5-1968 to the second respondent that the enhancement by more than double the tax originally levied is unjust and illegal. Accepting the said objections, the second respondent issued a demand notice demanding the original tax of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the District Agricultu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad95
Padmanabhan, J.1. In these writ appeals the validity of R. 6 (i) of the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under S. 7 of the Cotton Transport Act, 1923 (Central Act 3 of 1923) is being questioned. These writ appeals have been filed against the dismissal of a batch of writ petitions by a learned single Judge of this court. The main judgment is found in W. P. NO. 1683 of 1976.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follow : The appellants carry on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn in their various factories in Kerala State. They procure the necessary cotton for the manufacture of yarn from different places in India as well as from out of India. The major portion of the cotton is obtained from dealers in cotton in the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab etc. The cotton is supplied in the form of lint and is pressed and packed in hessian cloth over which iron hoops are tied for secure and convenient transportation. Each such packet is known as one bale and...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.R. and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS80D; 1978(2)ELT702(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the order of the third respondent (the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry) dated 24-11-1973, which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras (second respondent) and further confirmed in revision by the Government of India on 5-2-1975. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner manufactures perfumeries and also other items of goods, namely, sandanathi thailam, Bringamalike thailam, Ppnnanmuni thailam, arakeeravithai thailam etc. These thailams are prepared with gingelly oil, boiled with natural herbs, flowers and roots of plants under an old and immemorial system of native preparations. They contain medicine, qualities and are used before bathing as bath oils and are not usable as hair oils for grooming the hair. The thailams prepared by the petitioner are widely used and commonly known in the market and the commercial field only as bath oil. They are never known as perfumed...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Limited and ors. Vs. the District Agricu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ136
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. In these writ appeals the validity of Rule 6(i) of the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 7 of the Cotton Transport Act (Central Act III of 1923) is being questioned. These writ appeals have been filed against the dismissal of a batch of writ petitions by a learned single Judge of this Court. The main judgment is found in Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1976.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The appellants carry on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn in their various factories in Kerala State. They procure the necessary cotton for the manufacture of yarn from different places in India as well as from out of India. The major portion of the cotton is obtained form dealers in cotton in the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, etc. The cotton is supplied in the form of lint and is pressed and packed in hessian cloth over which iron hoops are tied for secure and convenient transportation. Each such packet is known as ...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Patel and anr. Vs. Madavi Patel and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ244
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question that arises in this case is about the custody and guardianship of a minor girl of 8 years, and the contestants for custody and guardianship are the appellants on the one side and the respondents on the other.The appellants are the grandfather and the mother of a young girl. Soon after her birth on the 7th of January, 1970, in August of the same year her father died. The father and the mother (second appellant) of the girt were at that time in Germany. The second appellant came to India (Ahamedabad) with the baby, where her father, the first appellant, and her mother lived. But she found it difficult to live in India with the baby. She decided to go to the Continent and then to the United States. She left very soon afterwards in December, 1970, and the child was then entrusted to the first and second respondents. They are a couple who are related to the first appellant, the grandfather of the child. The second respondent is the sister's son of the f...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Josephine Mary an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas875(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises a question of locus standi in proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. The question is, whether insurance companies when given notice, in proceedings for adjudicating claims for compensation in motor accident cases are entitled to canvass before the Accidents Tribunals questions relating to quantum of compensation 2. Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act expressly sets out certain grounds of defence as being available to be raised by insurance companies in such proceedings, but those grounds do not include any question relating to quantum of compensation. The pertinent issue raised before me at the hearing of this appeal was whether it is open to an insurance company to object to the quantum of compensation awardable to third parties either before the Claims Tribunal or before the appellate authority 3. The facts of this case relevant for the consideration of the question of locus standi may be briefly sta...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Electric Appliances Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS310D; 1979(4)ELT53(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner-firm is a manufacturer of domestic electrical appliances, particularly, water heaters of various sizes. On 1-3-1969, excise duty was introduced on domestic electric appliances. The petitioner submitted a price list on 7-3-1969. as required under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rule made thereunder for approval of the assessable value to the first respondent. At that time the petitioner was having two sets of prices, one applicable to bulk purchasers and another applicable to retail dealears who purchased small quantities. Messrs Philips India Ltd., is the only concern which was buying in large quantities while others were buying in small quantities The first responded, however, discarded both the sets of prices and gave a provisional approval on 8-3-1969 at the prices at which Messrs Philips India Ltd. sold the water heaters to small dealers who purchased from them in small quantities. On 26-8-1969, however, the first respondent gave a fina...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mohanlal Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC433(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. We do not think that we should admit this appeal, though a right has been conferred, unlike in the case of revision, to approach this Court in appeal, for we consider that the point taken in the appeal cannot be sustained. It is a well-accepted principle that even when there is a statutory right of appeal, the court can screen the appeal to find out whether the opposite side should be bothered to come up before this Court. Such a principle is laid down in Order 41, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no similar provision in the Sales Tax Act with which we are concerned. But the principle under that rule can be applied to sales tax cases and it is necessary that it should be applied because this Court should not be flooded with appeals which can be disposed of at the initial stage of hearing.2. Now, turning to the contention raised by the appellant, it can be summarised thus. The appellant has admittedly a turnover relating to sales amounting to Rs. 43...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »