Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ189
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the order in E.P. No. 413 of 1980 in O.S. No 939 of 1979 passed on 20th August, 1981 by the Principal District Munsif of Nagercoil in a petition for arrest of the judgment-debtor to realise the decree amount under Order 21, rules 37 and 38, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Principal District Munsif, after having taken into consideration the evidence of P. W. 1, the decree-holder as well as the contents of Exhibits A-1, copy of the judgment, dated 31st July, 1979 in O.S. No. 844 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Nagercoil and the evidence of the respondent, the judgment-debtor as R. W. I and the contents of Exhibit B-1 the copy of the income certificate, dated 30th September, 1980 issued by the Tahsildar (held that the judgment debtor comes within the Act). The case of the decree-holder before the lower executing Court was that the respondent-judgment-debtor is working in the Arulvoimozhi Spin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(3)ECC79
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. These three petitions for the issue of writs of habeus corpus for the release of the three detenus, are heard together in view of their similarity. 2. In all these three writ petitions, the only ground urged by Mr. Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the materials which formed the basis for detention were not communicated to the detenus in the language known to them, viz, Tamil. 3. In W.P. No. 6594 of 1982, one Arumugham is the detenu. In para (xi) of the grounds of detention served on him, it is stated as follows :- 'Apart from the above instances, you were also involved in Customs seizure cases previously and penalty imposed on you. The details of cases are as follows - 1. Seizure of polyester pant material valued Rs. 2,250/- on 20-12-1980 from your business premises 2. Seizure of textiles, car stereo torch lights and parasols valued Rs. 3275/- on 10-2-81 from your business premises Order DOR 154/80 dated 7-9-81 of Asst. Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT219(Mad)
ORDERMohan, J.1. All these writ appeals, which are directed against a common judgment of our learned brother, Ramanujam J. rendered in W.P. Nos. 10868 of 1981 batch, can be dealt with under a common order since they raise identical questions. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of safety matches. On 4-6-1979, a Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was issued, which was later on amended by Notification No. 264/79/C.E., dt. 29th September, 1979. These notifications provided for a set-off of duty on all excisable goods to the extent the duty paid goods falling under item 68 had been used as an input. In proviso 3 of the said notification it was provided that the notification will not apply to the goods on which excise duty had been paid through bande rolls. The appellants challenged the validity of the proviso 3 by preferring writ petitions contending that the notification allowed set-off of excise duty on inputs like Potassium chlorate, glue and phosphorus etc., all of which go into the manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1983(13)ELT931(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. All these writ appeals, which are directed against a common judgment of our learned brother Ramanujam J. rendered in W.P. Nos. 10868 of 1981 batch, can be dealt with under a common order since they raise identical questions. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of safety matches. On 4-6-1979, a notification No. 201/79-CE was issued, which was later on amended by notification No. 264/79-CE, dated 29-9-1979. These notifications provided for a set off of duty on all excisable goods to the extent the duty paid goods falling under item 68 had been used as inputs. In proviso 3 of the said notification it was provided that the notification will not apply to the goods on which excise duty had been paid through banderols. The appellants challenged the validity of the proviso 3 by preferring writ petitions contending that the notification allowed set off of excise duty on inputs like Potassium chlorate, glue and phosphorus etc., all of which go into the manufacture of safety matches, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1984)ACC79; AIR1984Mad34; (1983)IIMLJ183
Venugopal, J. 1. The appellant before this court is the second respondent in M. A. C. T. 0. P. No. 832 of' 1970 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein as petitioners. The first respondent in the O. P. is the Insurance Company. As a result of the lorry accident the first respondent's husband died on 2-8-1970 and respondents 1 to 3, along with the mother-in law of the first respondent, obtained an award for a sum of 37,440, against the appellant and the Insurance Company, on 10-2-1972. The appellant remained ex parte in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and hence the award against her was an ex parte award. The Insurance Company filed an appeal against the award, and that was dismissed. Thereafter the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs. 20,000 as its statutory liability was limited to Rs. 20,000. Since the balance amount of Rs. 17,400 under the award was not paid by the appellant, the respondents obtained a certificate from the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1986]158ITR826(Mad)
Shanmukham, J.1. At the instance of the Department (Revenue), the following questions were referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in (a) deleting the entire addition of Rs. 2,87,000, and (b) allowing interest of Rs. 31,269 for the assessment year 1957-58 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding is based on valid and relevant materials and a reasonable view to tab on the facts of the case ?' 2. On the basis that the credit entries in the names of various multani bankers appearing in the books of the assessee did not represent genuine transactions and that there was information to the effect that such multani bankers had only indulged in hawala transactions by merely lending their names, the Income-tax Officer reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58, which was completed on July 23, 1958, on a total income of Rs. 15,472. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1983)2MLJ478
P. Venugopal, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. A number of disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner by the Income-tax Department, and the writ petitioner, in turn, filed a number of writ petitions and writ appeals in this Court, with the result, there has been a tortuous and prolonged litigation between the parties lasting over a period of nearly 21 years.2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Officiating Power Division Clerk in the Income-tax Department, by an order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range, Madras on 15th January, 1947. He joined duty on 8th February, 1947. He was appointed as Officiating Steno-Typist on 11th January, 1950, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range and he was then confirmed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 1st October, 1951, by an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 28th December, 1951. Later he was confirmed as Steno-typist with effect from 1st Oct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad170; (1984)1MLJ19
ORDER1. Petitioner filed M.O.P. 523 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Sub. Judge 11. Chengalpattu. Claiming compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. since her husband was killed in a motor accident that took Place it 7-30 Dm. on 13-7-1982. Near Kothari Chemicals in Ennore Express Road. When he was driving the van TN 7815. She claims that all the witnesses to be examined are in Madras and it would be extremely difficult for her to take all the. Witnesses to attend several hearings by Tribunal. Located in ChengalDattu and by transfer of the proceedings none of the Parties to the proceedings would be Prejudiced if the Tribunal at Madras is dircted to hear the matter,2. On behalf of the first respondent Insurance Company. it is stated that by invoking S. 24. C. P. C the proceedings cannot be transferred and hence. This petition is not maintainable.3. The Petition is filed by invoking S. 24 and S. 151. C.P.C. and during the course of the hearing learned counsel for the Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad108
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit to set aside a claim order dated 20-9-1974 passed in E. A. 541 of 1973 in 0. S. 173 of 1971 on the file of the learned Subordinate judge. Tirunelveli or. in the alternative to pass a preliminary mortgage decree for the plaint amount with subsequent interest. The total amount claimed in the suit was Rs. 56.615. The suit 0. S. 173 of 1971 was filed by the second defendant against the first defendant on 23-12-1971. for the recovery of certain amount of money and that was decreed on 31-1-1973. In execution of the said decree, the second defendant attached certain immovable properties of the first defendant on 10-7-1973. and brought the properties to sale. At that time the plaintiff who is the elder brother of the , first defendant filed E. A. 541 of 1973 praying that the properties should be sold subject to an equitable m mortgage in his favour on the ground that there were certain money dealings between him and his broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad239; (1984)1MLJ195
ORDER1. It is contended an behalf of the revision petitioner/second defendant judgment-debtor, referring to the decision in Jolly George- Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, : [1980]2SCR913 , which has been followed by this Court in the decision rendered by Balasubrabmanyan, J. in Anuma Gounder v. Pormusami, : AIR1982Mad81 and bearing in mind ft observation of the Supreme Court as well as the decision arrived at by this Court, when the grievance of the revision petitioner is dealt with, certainly it would be seen that the order now impugned is revisable under Sec. 115, C. P. C. It is further contended that the order pronounced by the lower Court on 25-1-1982 in R.E.P. 195 of 1981 in 0. S. 201 of 1981, on the file of the learned- District Munsif, Mettur Dam, the petition filed by the respondent herein plaintiff-decree-holder under 0. 21, Rules 11 and 32 and 38 of the Civil P. C., for arrest of the revision petitioner herein for recovery of Rs. 3,876-40 being the decree amount and costs, is cert...
Tag this Judgment!