Chennai Court August 1978 Judgments
C.K. Ramaswamy, Secretary to Government, Legislative Council Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ94
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The Secretary to the Government, Legislative Council Department, Madras, feeling aggrieved by the order of V. Ramaswami, J. in W.P. No. 1574 of 1978, has presented this writ appeal canvassing the correctness of the view of the learned judge that Mr. G. Vasantha Pai, the petitioner in the writ petition shall be deemed to have substantially complied with the provisions in Article 188 of the Constitution of India and that he is entitled to sign the roll of Members of the Council and take the seat in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council as a duly elected member from the Madras District Graduates' Constituency without any further obligation on his part. The writ petitioner sought for a writ in the nature of a declaration declaring him as having performed his obligation by presenting himself before the Governor on 22nd April, 1978, to subscribe to the oath as required by Article 188 of the Constitution and having further informed the appellant by his letter dated 22n...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppurama Mudaliar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad263
1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, dated 23-3-1976 in O. S. No. 1207 of 1974. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed the suit for declaration to set aside the sale held by the revenue authorities on 9th July 1974, under the Revenue Recovery Act, in realisation of certain loans. contending that the sale was null and void. He paid court-fee under S. 25(d) of the Court Fees Act. The Court Fee Examiner gave a check-slip pointing out that the proper provision under which the court-fee should have been paid was S. 40(1) of the Court Fees Act. The matter came before the learned District Munsif for determining the question whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was correct and whether he had to pray for cancellation of the sale held on 9th Oct. 1973, in which event a higher fee became payable. After discussing the rival contentions he held that the plaintiff had to value the suit under S. 40(1) of the Court Fe...
Tag this Judgment!M. Duraiswami Achari Vs. Pavunammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ63
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, dated 31st January, 1976 in C.M.A. No. 28 of 1975. The tenant was the appellant before him. The tenant had filed R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1974 for depositing 14 months' rent in Court and also to deposit future monthly rents in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is this eviction petition which came up for consideration before the Rent Controller and by his order dated 22nd March, 1975, the Rent Controller held that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent, and therefore ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises. It is against this order that C.M.A. No 28 of 1975 was filed. The Rent Controller had also dismissed R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1974 seeking to deposit the arrears of rent and also ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagapattinam Permanent Fund Limited by Its Secretary Vs. N. Thirunavuk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ244
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This appeal raises a point of interpretation concerning the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972.2. The Act was enacted by the State Legislature to grant to debtors in this State the benefit of scaling down their debts. Certain categories of debts, however, were not to get this statutory relief. These excepted categories were mentioned in the very forefront of the Act in Section 3, under eight Clauses (a) to (h). Clause (h), in particular contained six subcategories, under Sub-Clauses (A) to (F). The debts mentioned in these Clauses and sub-Clauses were not eligible for relief under the Act; they could not be scaled down.3. The Nagapattinam Permanent Fund Limited, the appellant in this case, is a public limited company, carrying on business as a permanent fund. The respondent Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar, owned money to this fund. The appellant sued the respondent on the debt and obtained a money decree for Rs. 1,163.91 on 8th August, 1972. The respondent subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Pavunambal Vs. Ramaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ273
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This appeal raises a point about delay in the filing of proceedings for nullifying a marriage. The marriage took place a number of years ago, in 1957. The wife, wishing to have it declared a nullity, moved the Court in 1974 after 17 years had passed. By that time the husband had been dead for nearly 11 years. The ground taken by the petitioner was that at the time of her marriage the husband was already married. This other wife died in 1958, but she was alive when her husband had taken the petitioner in marriage.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the petition was filed, heard the petitioner and recorded her evidence. At the end of the inquiry he entered the finding that the marriage was bigamous. All the same, however, he dismissed the petition on the score that it was belated and it, had to be dismissed under the law on that ground. On appeal, the learned District Judge took precisely the same line. He characterized the delay as unconscionable and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dollar Company Vs. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS230D; 1979(4)ELT79(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The precise question for consideration in this writ petition is how exactly deductions on retail price of patent or proprietary medicines should be made for arriving at the assessable value of the goods for levy of excise duty.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of proprietary medicines. Patent or proprietary medicines come under tariff item No. 14-E and they attract levy of excise duty at 12 1/2 per cent ad valorem. Under Clause 8 of the item the methodology for determination of the assessable value of the medicines has been prescribed. This has been done by means of the notification No. 161/66-C. Ex., dated 8-10-1966 as amended by notifications No. 14/68-C. Ex., dated 3-2-1968 and No. 147/70-C. Ex., dated 25-7-1970 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance). The notification says that the Central Government has exempted patent and proprietary medicines falling under this item from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram and Co. Lesse of Sri Rama Rice Mills Tirppur and ors. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ481Mad
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. These are petitions by the owners or lessees of rice mills in Tiruppur and surrounding places filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the order of the Government made in G.O. M.s. No. 660, Labour and Employment, dated 16th July, 1976. That was a notification issued by the Government under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act, revising the minimum rates of wages revised in the Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department Notification No. 911 of 1961, dated 22nd February, 1961, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 1st March, 1961. The said Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 28th July, 1976.2. Though several grounds have been urged in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, to challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram and Company (Lessee of Sri Rama Rice Mill) and ors. Vs. the St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ67
ORDERIsmail, J.1. These are petitions by the owners or lessees of rice mills in Tiruppur and surrounding places filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the order of the Government made in G.O. Ms. No. 670, Labour and Employment, dated 16th July, 1976. That was a notification issued by the Government under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act, revising the minimum rates of wages revised in the Industries, Labour and Cooperation Department Notification No. 911 of 1961, dated 22nd February, 1961, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 1st March, 1961. The said Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 28th July, 1976.2. Though several grounds have been urged in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, to challenge the val...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Electronics Ltd. and anr. Vs. American Export Isbrandsen Lines ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad267; (1979)2MLJ304
1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 11,261-25 after having executed a receipt in full settlement for a sum of Rs. 3753-75 for non-delivery of certain goods shipped through the defendant. The plaintiff is Bharat Electronics Ltd. Bangalore. It purchased 20 cartons of Electron tubes from an American company. The goods were sent under a Bill of Lading from New York by s.s. 'Flying Cloud' belonging to the defendants. The ship arrived at Madras on 22-9-1969. When the goods were unloaded 9 cartons were found to be in a damaged condition. A survey was conducted on 1-10-1969. Which disclosed that 4 cartons were completely empty. Bharat Electronics Ltd. sent a claim bill dated 19-11-1969 for a sum of Rs. 20496 representing the value of the goods lost by non-delivery. As there was no response, a notice was sent through the recovery agent for the said sum. By a letter dated 3-3-1970 the defendants informed Bharat Electr...
Tag this Judgment!New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS234D; 1979(4)ELT75(Mad)
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner herein has come forward with the present petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner's claim for rebate of Rs. 6,59,104 under the terms of the Notification No. 146/74-Central Excises, dated 12-10-1974.2. The necessary facts to understand and appreciate this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is a sugar mill having been established in or about the year 1956. It went into production of sugar for the first time from the year 1960. The Central Government, acting under the provisions of the rules framed under Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19-14, passed an order dated 12-10-1974, which is Order No. 146/74-CE (G.S.R. 421-E) providing exemption from duty in respect of sugar. The said order contemplates exemption in respect of two categories of factories, viz., one in respect of factory which commenced production for the first time in 1967-68, or earlier and the other in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »