Chennai Court April 1983 Judgments
Asst. Collector of Central Excise (Preventive), Madras Vs. V. Krishnam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1880
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J. in Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy J., in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ellore Division Vellore, V. R. Padmanabhan (Judgment of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 808 of 1976, dated 20-12-1979), Reported in 1980 ELT 631 (Mad) on the question whether the officer of the Customs Department would be an agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Cr.P.C., and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such an officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable. 2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated. C.A. 688 of 1976 :- 3. This appeal raises out of the judgment made...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive), Madras Vs. V. Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT363(Mad)
1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 688 to 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy, J., inAssistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore v. R. Padmanabhan (judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 1976 dated 20th December, 1979), on the question whether the officer of the customs department would be an agency empowered to made investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such as officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable.2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated.3. Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976. - This appeal arises out of the judgment made in ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. and I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. U.O.i. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT234(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3025 of 1978, are Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. The prayer in W.P. Nos. 3026 of 1978 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated nil issued by the second respondent, Collector of Customs, Madras, and the prayer in W.P. 3025 of 1978 is for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the said show cause notice. 2. The facts leading to the filing of W.P. 3025 and 3026 of 1978 may be briefly set out as follows : The petitioners are engaged, among others, in the manufacture and/or curing of tobacco in India. On 31st August, 1970, the petitioners exported to the Imperial Tobacco Group Ltd., Bristol, U.M. 3677 cases of Flue Cured Virginia Tobacco from Kakinada Port per 's.s. Clan Graham'. The export was made in bond under Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, no excise duty was payable on the same. However, the consignee rejected in all 1...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ponkailasam Vs. the Secy. Saraswathi Narayana College and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ279
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner was functioning as a tutor in the department of Tamil in Saraswathi Narayna College, Perungudi, Madurai, of which the first respondent is the secretary. By order, dated 5th December, 1977, which was preceded by the formality of an enquiry, the first respondent, on the charges held to have been proved, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of withholding the increment for three years commencing from June, 1975. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Private 'Colleges (Regulation) Act XIX of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act which came to be dealt; with by the third respondent. The third respondent, on this : appeal, which is a statutory one, passed order on 17th April, 1969, perfunctorily in the following terms-With reference to his appeal first cited, Thiru P. Ponkailasam is informed that his request is not feasible of compliance.This writ petition is filed, 'Seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raju Vs. Gilford Hilkish
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ121
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlord filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant under Sections 10(2) and 14(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from December, 1979 till date of petition for 14 months and for requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building is an old one. The tenant resisted the petition on the grounds that the landlord had sent a notice on 10th October, 1973, asking the tenant to vacate the demised building for the personal occupation of the landlord, that the tenant sent a reply denying the alleged requirement of the landlord at that time, that on 9th January, 1975, the landlord sent another notice asking the tenant to vacate the building on the ground that the building required renovation, that the tenant sent a reply denying the bona fides of the alleged requirement for renovation, that in 1978 the l...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, by the Collector of Salem and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ258
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 609 of 1973, District Munsifs Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the appellant for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit properties, namely, the southern fence of Survey No. 233|17 with its site, the northern fence of Survey Nos. 237|1 and 237|13 with its site and the eastern fence of Survey Nos. 237|3 and 237|8 with its site and; for an injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the case of the appellant, he was the owner of shares in lands locally known as Vadaman Punjai and 'Kuttaparai Punjai also known as Kuttaparai punjai and Kudaparai punjai in Vagurampatti village forming part of Kondichettipatti mitta abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948. After the take over, there was a survey of the land(s) belonging to the appellant wherein his lands w...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Haja Shareff Vs. the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Mad55
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed on the 10th November 1981 by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, respondent 1 under Art. 192(l) of the Constitution, published in Gazette, S. O. M. S. No. 2026 of the even date, disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislitive Assembly, as he has incurred disqualification under Art. 191(l)(d). of the Constitution on his assumption of charge of the office of the Honorary Consul General of Turkey at Madras on the 29th October 1980.2. Mr. Justice Ramanujam, while admitting the writ petition, referred it to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the question that fell for consideration in this writ application, and that is, how this matter is before us.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a, narrow compass. The petitioner was elected to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the Thiruvallikkeni constituency in the general election held...
Tag this Judgment!Amirkhan Vs. Ghouse Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ136
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. Two interesting questions arise for consideration in this revision. One is whether the gift of the immovable property by a Mohamadan if reduced to writing, requires registration. Another is whether the gift deed in this case records any past transaction or the deed itself creates a right in the immovable property. The court below held that the document dated 6.3.1978 itself created a right in the immovable property and therefore requires registration. On that ground it refused to admit this document in evidence. It is this order that is canvassed in this revision.2. Mohamedan Law recognises an oral gift. The question is whether notwithstanding such right to created a gift orally, if a Mohamedan should reduce the gift to writing, the same requires registration. According to Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, nothing in Chapter VII relates to gift of immovable property made in comtemplation of death, or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Mohamedan La...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Narayana Raja Vs. Renganayaki Achi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad27
1. This is a petition by the appellant in C. M. A. No. 532 of 1977 pending before this court Under O. 34, R. 5, read with S, 151, C. P. C to permit the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2, 67, 974 - 64 into court2. The circumstances under which the said application has been filed may briefly be stated. The appellant had executed a mortgage of two items of properties in the year 1963. A suit O. S. 166 of 1965 was filed on the said mortgage and there was a preliminary decree, in that suit on 29-6-1966 for Rs. 1,23,088.58 with subsequent interest thereon. Later on 28-2-1967, a final decree had been passed. An execution petition was filed in E. P. No. 119 of 1967 for realising the decree amount by sale of the hypotheca. As the decree holder died later, his legal representation came on record on 30-11-1967. The said execution petition was posted for disposal on 22-12-1967. However, it was advanced and taken up on 1-12-1967 and posted to 2-12-1967, when the executing court directed the prop...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ramamoorthy Sastry Vs. Selvar Paints and Varnish Works (Pvt.) Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad172
Padmanabhan, J.1. A question of considerable importance arises for consideration - in this' civil revision Petition Pursuant to an order of reference made by Natarajan. J. The learned Judge has referred the matter for decision by a Bench as he disagreed with the ratio of Ratnavel Pandian. J. in K. P. Kesava .Mudaliar v. P. T. Sengoda Mudaliar. by Partner A. Raja Devan. 1981 TLNJ 149-C.R.P. 2583 of 1980. order dated 10th Oct. 1980. The question is whether a decree for money Passed by a court outside the State of Tamil Nadu and transferred for execution to a court within the State of Tamil Nadu. within whose jurisdiction the judgment debtor, has properties. can be declared to have been discharged under S. 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. 1970 (for short the Act) and whether the execution petition filed by the decree-holder can be said to have abated under S. 4 (c) of the Act. Ratnavel Pandian. J. held in the negative on the around that the cause of action arose outside the State ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »