Chennai Court July 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Precise Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC222; 1985LC1111(Madras); 1985(21)ELT84(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner imported 35 cartoons of plastic Metallised films Ex S. S. Lyumila Stal under bill of entry C.R. No. 402/79 No. 68, dated 21-6-1979 of the C.I.F. value of Rs. 80,065/- and claimed concessional assessment for the above imported goods under Customs Notification 228/76, as amended by 443/Cus/76, which wholly exempts countervailing duty on articles set out in the notification. The basic customs duty leviable under item 39.07, of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 at Rs. 96,066/- was paid, but the additional levy of duty at Rs. 88,060.50 was disputed. This writ petition was filed without availing of the remedies provided under the Act. The assessment was made on 6-7-1979. 2. Respondent takes up the stand that though the word 'films' is not specifically mentioned in Notification No. 228 - Customs, dated 2-8-1976, as amended by Notification No. 443 - Customs of 1976, a countervailing duty at the rate of 50 per cent of the value under Item 15-A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff is lev...
South Arcot District Co-op. Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Cegat, Srb.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC93
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in SP(MAS) 40/84 and Appeal No. ED(MAS) 57/84; and quash the same. Such a prayer has come to be made in the following circumstances : During the period 25-3-1982 to 30-7-1982, the petitioner cleared a quantity of 73,548 K.G. of 40's D.H.C.R. Cotton yarn to the West Bengal State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society, Calcutta, after paying duty at concessional rates. The concessional rate of duty can be availed of subject to two conditions, viz, (1) that the yarn is purchased by a registered handloom co-operative Society and (2) that the payment for such yarn is made by cheque drawn by such Co-operative society on its own Banker. In the instant case, it was found that the second condition was not satisfied. After issuing a show cause notice, the Central Excise authorities called upon the petitioner to pay differential duty on 75548 kg. of yarn which worked out to R...
R. Govindarajulu Naidu and anr. Vs. S. Dharman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad264
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The matter comes before us on a note by the office of this Court regarding maintainability. The Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Madras has passed an order on 1-2-1980 in O. P. 182 of 1979, dismissing the said petition preferred under S. 110-A of the N16tor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the appellants in the proposed civil miscellaneous appeal, for a compensation of Rs. 75,000, relatable to the death of one Mohan in a motor accident on 7-12-1978. The proposed civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Claims Tribunal. Pleading that they are indigent persons the appellants have filed a petition under O. 44, R. 1 C.P. Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for leave to file the appeal as indigent persons. The office of this court felt a difficulty and a doubt as to the propriety of the appellants invoking the provisions of the Code and that too, O. 44 and the allied provisions of the Code, in the ...
Prabhakar Rao Vs. Papayee Armnal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad206
ORDER1. The tenant in occupation of the premises bearing door No. 121 Bazar St, Ambattur, Madras 53, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent herein is the owner of that premises. Alleging that the premises had been let out to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 125 for residential purposes and that the tenancy was a monthly one according to English calendar, the respondent attributed wilful default in the payment of rents by the petitioner for a period of 10 months from 1-5-1976. Besides, the respondent stated that she required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of the education of her children. A notice terminating the tenancy was issued by the respondent on 7-11-1976, but as the petitioner did not surrender possession of the premises in his occupation in accordance with that, the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. 72 of 1977 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Poonamallee, under S. 10(2)(i) and S. 10(3)(a)(i) of th...
Rajamannar Chettiar Vs. Velayutha Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ467
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, in securing an order for eviction against the respondents herein and who lost before the Appellate Authority is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 188 of 1982 before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, under Section 10(2)(i) and (ii)(a) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 as amended by the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order of eviction against the respondents herein on the ground that his tenant, the 1st respondent herein, had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from July, 1981 onwards and has also, without his consent in writing, sub-leased the premises let out to him in favour of the 2nd respondent. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent herein, he stated that the rent had been paid by him regularly to the petitione...
Ramachandran and ors. Vs. S. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ133
G. Maheswaran, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking delivery of the suit properties by executing the decree in O.S.No. 410 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sirkali. That suit, O.S.No. 410 of 1968, was instituted by one Venkatesan Pillai, father of defendants, for recovery of possession of suit properties against one Ajeetha Divi, Sheik Dawood and Danapal. The said Danapal is the brother of the respondent in this appeal. Pending trial, Venkatesan Pillai died and the defendants were brought on record. The suit was decreed ex parts in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff-respondent by some arrangement with his brother is in possession of the suit property and has obtained the kudiyiruppu assignment deed evidenced by Exhibit A-1. The defendants objected to this assignment by the Authorised Officer (Kudiyiruppu), Mayuram. In ...
R. Govindrajulu and anr. Vs. S. Dharman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC172
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The matter comes before us on a note by the Office of this Court regarding maintainability. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras has passed an order on 1st February, 1980 in O.P. 182 of 1979, dismissing the said petition preferred under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the appellants in the proposed civil miscellaneous appeal, for a compensation of Rs. 75,000, relatable to the death of one Mohan in a motor accident on 7th December, 1978. The proposed civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Claims Tribunal. Pleading that they are indigent persons the appellants have filed a petition under Order 44, Rule 1, C.P. Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for leave to file the appeal as indigent persons. The Office of this Court felt a difficulty and a doubt as to the propriety of the appellants invoking the provisions of the Code and that too, Order 44 and the allied...
K. Dharmaraj Vs. A. Narasimhalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ166
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondents filed the petition R.C.O.P.No. 29 of 1982 for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. It is alleged by the respondents in the eviction petition that the petitioner herein occupied the non-residential building bearing D.Nos. 372/B, C and D in G.S.T.Road, Pasumalai village. The petitioner became a tenant under the respondents from 1.6.1979 in respect of the petition mentioned building. In respect of building Nos.372/B and C the tenancy was for a period of 3 years from 1.6.1981 and in respect of D.No. 372/D the tenancy was for 2 years. The tenancy was according to English Calendar month commencing from the first day of the month ending with the last day and the rent was payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding month. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 75/- per month in respect of the building in D.No. 372/B and C and Rs. 80/-per month in respect of buildi...
K. Viswanathan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad139
ORDERS:According to the existing instructions of the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs), New Delhi, among others, in the list of authorities empowered to issue community certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Revenue Officers not below the rank of Tahsildar, besides sub Divisional Officers of the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides are competent to issue such certificates.2. With a view to prevent the issue of wrong community certificates, Government after careful consideration, direct that, in order to ensure that the issue of community certificates to persons requiring certificates as belonging to Konda Reddi Scheduled Tribe community is clone with care and caution, the powers for the issue of community certificates to the above persons shall be vested only with the Revenue Divisional Officers hereafter, instead of Tahsildars who shall observe the following criteria as proof of belonging to the said community.(i) Productio...
Transformer and Switchgear Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: [1986]62STC445(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the Board of Revenue suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of an assessment made under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee in this case reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,15,98,554.28 and Rs. 7,16,667.24, respectively, for the assessment year 1972-73 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority, by his order dated 15th April, 1974, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,38,08,678.18 and Rs. 13,20,879.24, respectively. In passing such an assessment order, he rejected the assessee's claim for exemption in respect of Rs. 4,04,420 on the ground that they represent export sales. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the denial of benefit of exemption of Rs. 4,04,420 by the assessing authority was erroneous. The Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »