Chennai Court April 1981 Judgments
Government of India Vs. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT892(Mad)
ORDER1. Since the points involved in the writ appeal and the writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in W.A. No. 545 of 1977 for the purpose of apprehending the common questions involved in all these cases. 2. The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, filed a price list for approval before the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mettur, M.O.R. for aluminium in various forms produced by them. The said price list was prepared taking into account the Notification dated 24th May, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Exemption notification, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), Government of India, granting exemption in respect of certain varieties of aluminium from a portion of excise duty payable thereon. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Mettur before approving the price list enhanced the assessable value of the goods as shown by the company giving effect to his own...
Tag this Judgment!Arokiasamy and anr. Vs. Martial Margaret
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad93
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,3N. The facts leading to the filing at the suit are as follows.: -The defendants as decree-holders brought certain , properties of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal, wife of Govindachari and others, who were the Judgment-debtors, -to sale in E. P 172 of 1972 on the file of the - learned additional Subordinate Judge, Pondichary .The plaintiff was the successful auction purchaser and on 1-11-197 the date education, he deposited one-fourth at the sale proceeds of Ra 35,100. He had also remitted the balance of consideration and also non-judicial stamp papers for the issue of a sale certificate. Better the sale could be confirmed, the judgment debtors filed K A. No. 492 4 19M under O. 21, R 90, C. P. C. to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularities and fraud, in publishing the proclamation, of sale and in the conduct of the sale, By an order dated 3-8-1974, the learn...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Chitramuthu Adigal Athma Santhi Nilayam Vs. the District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ1
ORDER1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The second respondent applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' in 1978 for running a touring cinema. The appellant filed objections stating that his1 institution Athma Santhi Nilayam is a place of public worship and the situs of the touring cinema is within a distance of 200 metres from his institution. The objections were overruled and a no objection certificate was granted in favour of the second respondent, on 13th August 1978. Thereafter the licence was renewed at the instance of the second respondent and the latest order of renewal was passed on 4th January, 1981, renewing the licence upto 31st January, 1981. The appellant filed objections to the grant of renewal of licence similar to those which he raised at the time of grant of no objection certificate. Overruling the objection the first respondent renewed the licence in favour of the second respondent, observing that it is open to the appellant to agitate the same ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Appavu Gounder Vs. Collector of South Arcot Dt. at Cuddalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1145
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order of the learned-Sessions Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the order of the Collector of South Arcot, who confiscated to the Government 50 bags of paddy. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the Collector by directing only 25 bags of paddy to be confiscated to the Government. 2. Both the order of the Collector and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained for the reasons to be stated hereafter. On 21-6-1976, the Assistant Collector, Tindivanam, along with the Assistant Taluk Supply Officer, Tindivanam, and the Purchase Officer, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tindivanam, inspected the business premises and the godown of Messrs M. V. Arunachalam and S. Dhanapal. Agent, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tindivanam and found 50 bags of paddy in excess of the stock entered in the register. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, claims to be the owne...
Tag this Judgment!G. Dhyanand and anr. Vs. Zaamni Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad311; (1982)1MLJ290
1. One Abdul Jabbar, the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 7, lost his life in a fatal road, accident about 12 O'clock midnight on 2-10-75, on the Hosur-Krishnagiri Road while he was traveling in the lorry MYD 3425 belonging to the first appellant and insured with the second appellant. The case of the respondents 1 to 7, who are petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 20 of 1977 under S. 116-A of the Motor Vehicles Act J& as follows -The deceased Abdul Jabbar was a sheep merchant and was aged about 50 years at the time of his death, The de ceased was travelling in the lorry MYD 3425 from Bangalore. The lorry was driven by the 8th respon- dent, 'herein, and when the lorry was proceeding near Kurubarabelli at about 12 O'clock m the midnight on 2-1'0-1975 due to the rash and negligent driving at high speed, the lorry capsized and Abdul Jabbar who sat in the cabin met with instantaneous death. The accident took place on a...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Madras Vs. Dhaulat K. Nichani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad72
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in O. P. No. 103 of 1974, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation in favour of the respondent in respect of a motor accident.2. On 20-8-1973, the respondent was proceeding on Mount Road on his scooter. When he stopped at the automatic signal opposite to the Agurchand Mansion, the bus, MSQ 5948 belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation coming behind hit the scooter causing grievous and multiple injuries to the respondent as also damages to the scooter. On account of the injuries sustained, the respondent had to remain as an inpatient in the hospital for some time and undergo an operation. On the ground that on account of the accident he has sustained loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as he was unable to undertake the European business tour sponsored by one Transworld Trading Corporation and he had lost his job in the British Leyland International Ltd., London, he filed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Authorised Officer (L. Refs.) Thanjavur, Now at Kumbakonam Vs. B.N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad338
Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Mohan J. in W, P. 4870 of 1978. This writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Thanjavur, from taking any further proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961, as amended by Act 17 of 1970. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in C.M.A. No. 143 of 197 3 is conclusive and that the lands in question have not been proved to be agricultural lands coming under the definition of S. 3 (22) of the Act referred to above. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the Authorised Officer.2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Land Tribunal in C.M.A. 143 of 1973 was under the original Act of 1961 and not as per the amended Act 17 of 1970. Hence, according to ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramiah thevar Vs. Balasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ431
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a revision brought by the plaintiff in a simple money suit of a small cause nature against the respondent. The suit was brought for the recovery of Rs, 550 and interest at 12 per cent, per annum thereon on a promissory note. The defendant resisted the suit. He pleaded that there was no cause of action for the suit. More particularly he pleaded that the suit promissory note could not be sued upon, because he merely signed his name on a stamped paper which was blank, and it had been filled up at the instance of the plaintiff to make it appear that it was for Rs. 550. The truth, according to the defendant was, his signature on a stamped blank paper was taken by the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff's practice in such transactions. According to the defendant, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 220 agreeing to repay it in monthly instalments of Rs. 22 and that by June, 1976, that loan had been discharged by him in that manner. Nevertheless, accordin...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nageswara Rao Vs. Balaji Finance Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad362
1. The short facts lead-ing to this appeal, which arises out of insolvency proceedings, are follows:-In Janqary, 1977, against the appellant fhe first respondent filed O. S. No. 23 of 1977 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,500/-. A decree was passed on 13th September, 1977 against the appellant. In the meanwhile, it appears, he fell into arrears of sales tax recoverable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 'concerning which notice of attachment under Sections 27 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864) was issued on 10th December, 1977. Consequent to this attachment, on 20-2-1978 the property, which was attached, was put in management of the Sales Tax Officer under Section 28 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Thereafter, in execution of the decree in E. P. No. 366 of 1978 in O. S. No. 23 of 1977, the property belonging to the appelan. Came to attacment on 14-2-1978. On 20-2-1978 the attachment was actually effected. When this attachment has been subs...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Sankara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. B.M. Haji Abubacker Maricar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ197
V. Ratnam, J.1. The respondents 2 to 4 in H.R.C. No. 3036 of 1976 before the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, which arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein for an order of eviction against the petitioners and another. According to the case of the respondent, he is the owner of premises bearing Door No. 133, Moore Street, Madras-1, and that one S.M. Hussain alias Hallaj (the first respondent in H.R.C. No. 3036 of 1976) occupied the entire first floor portion thereof excepting a room as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 215, exclusive of electricity charges. The further case of the respondent was that Hussain alias Hallaj retained only one room for his own use and occupation and sub-let the other portions to the petitioners and the fifth respondent in the, application for eviction and that the sub-lessees are in, occupation of the respective portions payingrent to Hussain alias Hallaj. It was also the cas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »