Chennai Court August 1982 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem Vs. V. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT332(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a revision petition under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem, Integrated Divisional Office, Salem, against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari in C.C. 367 of 1978 directing the return of M.Os. 4 to 9 and 14 to the first accused, respondent herein. 2. The prosecution was laid by the Assistant Collector Excise, alleging that the respondent herein, viz. first accused along with another contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act and was thus liable to be punished under Ss. 85 and 87 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the case convicted the first accused and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The second accused, who is not a party to this petition, was found not guilty. While disposing of the said case, M.Os. 4 to 9 and 14, were ordered to be returned to the first accused after the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Bahole Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. Government of India and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC233; 1983(12)ELT728(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ235
ORDERVenugopal, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. It is a propriety firm. It manufactured and cleared Homeopathic injections during the period March 1961 to December 1966, without payment of any Excise duty. In December 1968, the Assistant Collector, came to the conclusion that Homeopathic injections which are administered by parenteral route are not recognised as Homeopathic medicine and hence they are not excluded from the purview of Patent or Proprietary medicines under Tariff Item No. 14E of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, the Homeopathic injections cleared by the appellant during the period 1st March 1961 to 31st December 1966, were assessed to duty under Item No. 14E of the Central Excise Tariff, and two demands for Rs. 345.60 and Rs. 5365.14 were raised by the two notices issued on 6th December 1968. The Appellant resisted the demand contending that Homeopathic injections contain purely minute quantity of Homeopathic medicines classified in the...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. C. Thomas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ149Mad; (1983)IIMLJ552
1. This appeal coming on for hearing on Friday, the 12th March, 1982 before the Honorable Mr. Justice Mohan, and upon persuing the petition of appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arrangements of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. K. Chandru, for M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocates for the First Respondent, and the respondents 2 to 5 having been given up, the court made the following order :2. This appeal raises a very important question of law as to the Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to direct compensation to be awarded against the insurer. There are number of authorities for and against. Holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction, there are rulings (1) Sudhir Kumar v. Hori (59 F.J.R. 165) and (2) R. B. Moondra & Co v. Bhanwari . On the contrary, by importing the principle set out under Ss. 95 and 96 read along with S. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the rul...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Spinning Mills, Mettur Dam Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ50Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition is Mettur Spinning Mills, Mettur Dam, Salem District. The 3rd respondent was employed under the petitioner. On 3rd October 1975, a charge memo was issued by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent. The gravemen of the charge was the 3rd respondent, during the period from February 1975 to April 1975 obtained a certificate from the doctor attached to the Employees' State Insurance Dispensary at Mettur Dam that he was sick on a number of days and he got sickness benefits from the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, and during the same period, when the petitioner mills was under lay off, suppressing the above fact, he presented himself for work in the petitioner mills and obtained lay off compensation. Admittedly there was no order of suspension of the 3rd respondent, pending enquiry into the above charge, passed by the petitioner. It is stated on 10th January, 1975 the 3rd respondent wanted time to offer his explanation to the charge and he di...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thiruvengada Mudaliar by Partner, P. Nagarathna Mudaliar and ors. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ242
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. It is the admitted position in this case that two appeals have1 been filled out of time and the court-fee paid also is not in full. Other defects have also not been rectified, with the result that the memoranda of appeals have not been placed for orders for condoning the delay or for admission. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not want to prosecute the appeals, perhaps some settlement has been arrived at outside the Court--and prays for permission for the refund of the court-fee paid on the two memoranda of appeals. He has also submitted that the petition for condoning the delay has also not been, placed for orders of the Court.2. The relevant provision with regard to the refund of court-fee under the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is Section 66.66. Refund in cases of delay in presentation of plaint etc.--(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay (1) in its representation, or...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. C. Thomas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC439
K.B.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal coming on for hearing on Friday, the 12th March, 1982 before the Honourable Mr. Justice Mohan, and upon persuingthe petition of appeal the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Sanjay Mohan Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. K. Chandru, for M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocates for the First Respondent, and the respondents 2 to 5 having been given up, the court made the following order:2. This appeal raises a very important question of law as to the Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to direct compensation to be awarded against the insurer. There are number of authorities for and against. Holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction, there are rulings Sudhir Kumar v. Hori 59 F.J.R. 165 and R.B. Moondra & Co. v. Bhanwari . On the contrary, by importing the principle set out Under Sections 95 and, 96 read along with Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles A...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Parasmal and Company Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC47(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the petitioner in the two tax case petitions and the appellant in the writ appeal are one and the same person and the points involved are also substantially the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The facts leading to the writ appeal may first be stated. The appellant is a dealer in sugar candy and confectionery. For the assessment year 1975-76, he has been assessed to sales tax on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,42,507.91 and Rs. 7,364.79 respectively on the basis of the return furnished by him. In the said assessment, the local sales of sugar candy for the period 2nd April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, amounting to Rs. 5,93,298.12 was excluded from the taxable turnover on the ground that sugar candy was not liable to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and the balance turnover alone was held liable to tax. Subsequently, on 12th July, 1977, the assessing authority proposed to revise the assessment in exercise of its power under section 16...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Pyarelal Malhotra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC215(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The only question that arises in this tax case which has been filed by the State against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, is whether the Tribunal is justified in law in rejecting the petition for enhancement filed by the State in limine on the ground that the said enhancement petition will not lie. 2. The assessee in this case had purchased scrap locally, converted the same into M.S. Rods and then sold the same locally. The local sales of M.S. rods were not taxed by the assessing authority following the decision of this Court in Pyarelal Malhotra v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 416 which held that the local sales mad out of locally purchased scrap cannot be taxed as iron and steel are taxable only at one stage. Against the original order of assessment, there was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in relation to other matters. That appeal having failed, the assessee filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!Rallis India Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ328Mad
Venugopal, J.1. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant before this Court. It is a public limited company. It appointed the second respondent as a salesman in the Pharmaceutical Division by its letter dated 21-8-1959. The second respondent was then promoted as its Medical Representative with effect from 1-7-1964 for Nellore, Chittoor and Katappa, three Districts in Andhra Pradesh with Headquarters at Nellore. The second respondent was charged with irregularities in respect of alleged low sales in the first three months of the financial year 1972-73. He was also charged for being deliberately absent from duty on 24th and 25th December, 1972. He submitted his explanation regarding all these two charges and the order of termination came to be passed on 10-1-1973. The second respondent then filed an appeal under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') challenging the order of termination on the ground that it was passed with...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswami Pradayachi and anr. Vs. Thangavel Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad286
ORDER1. The judgment-debtors are the revision petitioners. The respondent (decree-holder) has obtained a decree against the petitioners in terms of Act XL of 1978. Subsequently, after Act XL of 1979 came into force, he filed a petition for reopening the suit for having the suit claim 'scaled down in accordance with the terms of Act XL of 1979'. Overruling the objection of the judgment-debtors, the court below has ordered the amendment of the decree and hence the revision by the judgment-debtors.2. The promissory note executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent was for Rs. 4,200. However, while filing the suit, the respondent restricted the suit claim to one-half of the principal sum and interest due thereon as per S. 7 (1) (b) of Act XL of 1978, read with Explanation (2) annexed thereunder. The defendants submitted to a decree and accordingly, a decree was passed on 8th June 1979.3. Such being the case, it is not open to the decree-holder to ask for amendment of the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »