Chennai Court February 1982 Judgments
O. Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Additional Director of Enforcement, Ministr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad59
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these cases are substantially the same and they arise from one and the same order passed by the Additional Director of Enforcement, they are dealt with together.2. The appellant in C. M. A. 288 of 1980 and the appellant in C. M. A. 289 of 1980, are husband and wife and they have been found guilty for the contraventions of Sections 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, both by the initial authority as well as by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Board and in these appeals they are challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Board.3. On 27-1-1974, the residence of one Abdul Azeez, the appellant in C. M. A. 288 of 1980 and his wife, the appellant in C. M. A. 289 of 1980, were searched. During the search a few foreign letters account sheets, a note book containing certain accounts and particulars, four pocket diaries, a cheque relating to an account in the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!O. Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Additional Director of Enforcement, Ministr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ359
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these cases are substantially the same and they arise from one and the same order passed by the Additional Director of Enforcement, they are dealt with together.2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 288 of 1980 and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 289 of 1980 are husband and wife and they have been found guilty for the contravention of Sections 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Foreign. Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, both by the initial authority as well as by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Board and in these appeals they are challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Board.3. On 27th January, 1974, the residence of one Abdul Aziz, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 288 of 1980 and his wife, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 289 of 1980 were searched. During the search a few foreign letters, account sheets, a note book containing certain accounts and particulars, four...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Sankarasundaram Vs. the Director of Stationery and Printing and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ427
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner was recruited as Assistant Works Manager in the Government Press, Madras on 26th September, 1969. The petitioner is senior to respondents 3 and 4. On 5th July, 1976, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Deputy Works Manager overlooking the claims of the petitioner. At this stage it may be mentioned that certain adverse entries were made in the confidential file of the petitioner for the period 10th November, 1969 to 31st March, 1972 and for the years ending 31st December, 1974 and 31st December, 1975. The petitioner filed two writ petitions T.N. Sankarasundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government Transport Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and Ors. W.P. Nos. 2429 and 2430 of 1976, on the file of this Court for directing the Director of Stationery and Printing, Madras, to expunge the adverse remarks entered in his personal file for the particular period and to direct the State Government to give effect to the list...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC253; 1985LC221(Madras)
1. This writ petition is for a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to release 1,219.23 metric tonnes of palm oil shipped by the third respondent to the fourth respondent, now lying at the Madras harbour warehouse, to the petitioner. The facts are as follows : The third respondent, a private limited company in Singapore, shipped 1,219.23 metric tonnes of palm oil of the total value of American Dollars 9,87,576.30 equivalent to 77,39,626.18 Indian rupees, to Messrs. Hyder Enterprises, the fourth respondent, under a valid import licence. The goods were shipped on board the vessels 'Enfield' and 'Deccan Pioneer' before 28th February, 1980, the date of expiry of the import licence. The ships arrived in Madras on or before the 30th March, 1980, and 14th April, 1980, respectively. Two bills bearing Nos. UBP. 115/80 and UBP. 116/80 for American Dollars 1,29,567.60 and 2,68,928.10 were discounted by the Singapore Branch of the petitioner-bank. Three other bills for the balance amou...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C. Vadiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad386
1. The respondent herein filed W. P. No. 6568 of 1981 praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the Proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in Rc.G1/12852/81 dated 8-8-1981 and quashing the same and also for further directing the State of Tamil Nadu and the Com, missioner of Prohibition and Excise to grant the privilege for supply of arrack by wholesale in the district of Periyar for the year 1981-82, under the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Supply by Wholesale), Rules, 1981.2. The respondent herein had put in an application in response to a Notification dated 4-5-1981 calling for applications for grant of Privilege and Supply in wholesale arrack to declare in Periyar District. The said application was filed on 17-5-1981 after complying with all the necessary formalities and also making the necessary deposit of Rupees 30,000, as required -by the Rules. Besides the respondent he...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chinna Vaira thevar Vs. S. Vaira thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad160
Ramanujam, J.1. This matter has been posted before us on an order of reference made by Sethuraman. J. as he felt that there was a conflict between the decision of Balasubramanyam J. in S. Charles Samuel (died) v. Board of Trustees, Suchindram (1978) 91 MLW 320 and that of Varadarajan J as the then was in N. Lakshmanan Nadar v. Board of Trustees, Sucheendram (Order dt 10-12-195 in C.M.P. No. 13471 of 1975 in S.A. 144 of 1972).2. Before dealing with the point in respect of which a conflict is said to have arisen, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts of this case. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit for declaration of his title t the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property comprised in S.No.379/2 Velampatti village and for an injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant form interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff's case was that by means of a registered sale deed dated 24-6-1953, he purchas...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.L. Labbai Thambi Maraicar Vs. the Government of India, Enforcement ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ59
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein is aggrieved against the order dated 5th October, 1979 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board which affirmed the order dated 9th March, 1976 of the Assistant Director of Enforcement holding the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and 1973 respectively and levying a penalty of an aggregate sum of Rs. 15,000 in respect of those violations.2. On information that the appellant has received certain payments from a person in India under instructions from a person resident abroad the appellant was summoned to appear before the Chief Enforcement Officer. He gave a statement that two sums of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 were received by him by sale of paddy and denied that the said amounts received by him represented payments received under instructions from a person residing abroad. As the statement given by him was found not satisfactory on enquiry, again he w...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thangavelu Chetty Vs. Chinnasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad21
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorari from this Court to have the order dated 2-3-1981 of the third respondent affirming the order dated 20-9-1980 of the second respondent, quashed.2. The first respondent herein and his younger brother took a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from the petitioner on execution of a mortgage of their lands in S. No. 368 and S. No. 367/2 in Thimmapuram village. The first respondent filed an application under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act, before the second respondent for relief in respect of the mortgage. The second respondent has, by his order dated 20-9-1980, held that the first respondent owns only a half share in the lands mortgaged which consist of 0.50 cents wet in S. No. 368 and 0. 16 cents dry in S. No. 367/2 of Thimmapuram village, and that therefore, he is a small farmer owning lands within the limit prescribed by the 1976 Act. He therefore ordered, 'that the loan obtained by him is dis...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ30
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The respondent herein filed W.P. No. 6568 of 1981, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in Rc. G1/12582/81, dated 8th August, 1981, and quashing the same and also for further directing the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to grant the privilege for supply of arrack by wholesale in the District of Periyar, for the year 1981-82, under the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Supply by Wholesale) Rules, 1981.2. The respondent herein had put in an application in response to a Notification, dated 4th May, 1981, calling for applications for grant of privilege and supply in wholesale arrack to dealers in Periyar District. The said application was filed on 17th May, 1981, after complying with all the necessary formalities and also making the necessary deposit of Rs. 30,000 as...
Tag this Judgment!T. Chengalvarayan Vs. the Muthialpet High School, Represented by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ378
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal by a teacher whose services have been terminated by the first respondent/school management. On 24th July, 1969, a memo, of charges was issued to the appellant to show cause why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The memo, set out the charges and called for an explanation. The appellant submitted his explanation on the 23rd August, 1969. On 8th September, 1969, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the School management informed the appellant that the Committee was not satisfied with his explanation on the charges and he was further called upon to be present for an oral enquiry if he so desired with such oral or documentary evidence. To this the appellant replied stating that since his explanation is held not satisfactory in the memo, dated 8th September, 1969, he was certain that he may not be meted out justice in the proposed enquiry by the Committee and that therefore, he was not willing to subject himself to a fu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »