Chennai Court November 1979 Judgments
M. Kanakavel Pillai by Power Agent M. Sellaiyah Pillai Vs. Drugs and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ392
V. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner. An application was filed by him under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1973, hereinafter called the Act, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent and others. The property in question bearing door No. 33 in T.S.R. Big Street, Kumbakonam town, was purchased by the petitioner under two said deeds dated 5th January, 1975 and 15th January, 1975. Even at the time when the property was purchased, the respondent and others were in occupation as tenants under a tenancy agreement with the vendors of the petitioner. After the purchase by the petitioner, the respondent and others who have been carrying on business in the sale of drugs and medicines had also attorned. The petitioner claimed that he requires the building for his own use and occupation and to start a business and only for this purpose, according to him, he had inve...
Tag this Judgment!Sarada Industries Vs. Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1979
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT262(Mad)
Ratnaval Pandian, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by one and the same jpjrson, viz, one M/s. Sarada Industries, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras-58, seeking writs of certiorari quashing the orders of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, the respondent in all the three petitions, made in (1) Order No. 1571 of 1974, dated 11-4 1974, confirming, on revision the order passed by the Appellete Collector of Customs, Madras, in App No.C. 3/369/73, dated 6-8-1973 (subject matter in W.P. 2632 of 1977) and (2) Order No. 3671 of 1975, dated 10-10-1975, commonly made in two revisions, confirming the orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras in App. No.C. 3/2256/73 (subject matter in W.P. No. 2631 of 1977) and C. 3/1911/74 (subject matter in W.P. No. 3464 of 1977).2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of automobile parts, bolts, nuts and screws, at Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: 1990LC607(Madras); 1980CENCUS50D; 1981(8)ELT478(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam J.1. The first two writ petitions have been filed by Messrs Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Malco, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wire rods. The third writ petition has been filed by M/s Industrial Cables (India) Ltd., manufacturer and seller of power cables and conductors made out of aluminium wire rods purchased from Malco and other manufacturers of wire rods.2. Malco started manufacturing E.C. Grade aluminium wire rods of 3/8' diameter popularly known as Properzi rods since January 1967, in the Properzi plant imported by them in the year 1966. The rods are machine wrung in nature and the process of manufacture of these rods is as under-'Liquid aluminium produced in electrolytic pots after degasification and fluxing is fed through a cast iron tube into a rotating water cooled copper vessel, which is also water chilled on the outside. The cast rod is approximately triangular in shape and is continuous and is fed into a series of...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India and ors. Vs. Reichold Chemicals (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT251(Mad)
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramanujam, J., dated 4th November, 1977 allowing W.P. No. 3374 of 1973. Admittedly, the demand was made by the appellants herein under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Equally admittedly, a Bench of this Court in Chemical Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Agarwal Brothers, Madras 1 v. Union of India, represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, New Delhi and two Ors. (W.P. No. 268 of 1973 and 419 of 1970)-1973 T.L R. 2213 has struck down the above rules. The learned Judge following the said Bench decision has allowed the present writ petition.2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that at the relevant time, there was a provision in the Statute that the rules will have effect as if enacted in the statute and that aspect was not considered by the Bench of this Court in the above cases and, therefore, on that ground we s...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC302(Mad)
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras (Second Additional Bench), dated 23rd June, 1978, in Tribunal Appeal No. 1223 of 1977. The respondent herein is a dealer in country chekku products at Bhuvanagiri in South Arcot District. During the assessment year 1975-76, it was found that the respondent had purchased gingelly seeds for the value of Rs. 18,507, which the respondent had obviously used for manufacturing oil and also getting the resultant oilcake. The purchase turnover of Rs. 18,507 was taxed under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent contended that she was a dealer in oil chekku products and hence exempted even from the tax On the purchase of gingelly seeds. This contention was not accepted by the authorities below. But the Tribunal, on a theory of public welfare intended to help a class of under-privileged and economically backward section of the society, ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Arunachalam Pillai Vs. Sri Mayuranathaswamy Temple, Mayuram by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ247
S. Natarajan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 114 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, is the appellant. The respondent herein, Sri Mayuranathaswamy Temple, Mayuram, by its sole and Hereditary Trustee, Sri-la-Sri Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi Avargal, Adheenakarthar, Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam, instituted the suit against the appellant and one Kandaswamy Pillai, the second defendant in the suit, for recovery of possession of the suit property and a sum of Rs. 7,500 towards, past damages for three years and for future damages. The case of the respondent is that the suit property, marked as A B C D E F G in the sketch attached to the plaint, belongs to it and is a cocoanut tope of an extent of 4 acres and 25,465 sq. ft. and known as Sami Naicken Tope. The tope is said to contain 282' cocoanut trees besides two mango trees and a number of iluppai trees. The respondent used to lease out the usufruct of the trees periodically in open auction and the last occ...
Tag this Judgment!The Music Academy, Represented by Its Present Trustee and Convenor Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ331
V. Ratnam, J.1. In this civil revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1886 of 1958, Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Court has powers to extend the time for payment provided under Section 9(2) (4) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act beyond three years from the date of the order.2. The petitioner instituted a suit in ejectment and also for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 112.50 towards damages for use and occupation and also for future damages for use and occupation at Rs. 25 P.M. till the date of possession. The respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 5 of 1958 in O.S. No. 1886 of 1958 claiming benefits under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. On 31st October, 1960, the learned Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras held that the respondent is a tenant in respect of 16* north to south and 15 1/2 east to west space in his occupation. In regard to t...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Anwar Basha Vs. M. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad56
1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his suit in 0. S. No. 4 of 1972 on the file of the District judge, North Arcot,2. The plaintiff, a manufacturer of beedies at Vaniyambadi under the name fish beedies' with wrappers and labels showing the picture of fish in water, applied to the Court for declaration of his right to 'use the trade mark Meen Beedies to the beedies manufactured by him as shown in Annexure II to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant who is also engaged in the. Business of manufacture of beedies at Vellore from using the infringed trademark. The plaint averred that the plaintiff has been using his trade mark of fish in water encircled with an oval ring with the letters PLA on either side of Oval ring within a circle as set out -in Annexure I to the plaint with the trade name Meen Beedi both in Tamil and Urdu beneath it and in Telugu above it with the words 'Fish Mark Beedi and Meen mark Beedi on either side of it...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohammed Yusuf Zulaika Unima and ors. Vs. P.A. Abdul Khader (Died ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad143; (1980)1MLJ218
1. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, dated 6th Oct. 1976, made In H. R. A. Nos. 259 and 260 of 1975. The petitioners herein are the owners of premises No 1/30 Vepery High Road, Madras-7. They leased out the premises in question to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents- here in two lease deeds, one in respect of the ground floor and the other in respect of the first floor the rent for the . ground floor being Rs. 351D and the rent for the first floor being Rs. , 260 per month It was in respect of these two lease deeds that the petitioners filed two petitions H. R. C. 1325 and 1326 of 1976 under S. '10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act, on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises without-the consent of the landlords and that consequentially he had violated the terms of the lease. In the counter filed by him, the tenant disputed the allegation that he had violated the conditio...
Tag this Judgment!B. Muniswami Naidu Vs. the Official Trustee High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ223
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Nainar Sundaram., J. dated 27th August, 1979, dismissing application No. 2664 of 1979 filed by the appellant herein The premises No. 877, Thiruvottiyu High Road, Madras-19, vested in the Official Trustee, Madras, under the scheme decree in C.S. No. 363 of 1912 on the file of this Court. The Official Trustee granted a lease with reference to two portions of the premises in question, in favour of second and third respondents herein. The front portion, known as pial portion, was granted on lease with effect from 1st July, 1979 in favour of the second respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 and the Official Trustee received an advance of three months' rent, namely, Rs. 225 on 22nd June, 1979 and the second respondent took possession of the same with effect from 1st July, 1979. The back portion of the said property was leased on a monthly rent of Rs. 165 in favour the third respondent herein. The Official Trustee received an a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »