Chennai Court January 1985 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ435
Ramanujam, J.1. These writ appeals filed by the State are directed against the common judgment of Sathiadev, J., dated 24th January, 1983 in W.P.Nos. 3990, 3991 and 3992 of 1978 holding that the order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules is invalid in law and that the adverse remarks made in his confidential sheet by the second respondent cannot properly form the basis for the order compulsorily retiring him from service.2. The circumstances under which the said three writ petitions came to be filed may briefly be stated. The first respondent in these appeals joined the police service as a Sub-Inspector in 1948. He was elevated to the post of Inspector in the year 1964. Later in the year 1974 he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the usual course he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam. While serving at Uthamapalayam, an adverse remark had been made on 21.12.1976 for the period ending 30.9.1976 by the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangu Chakra Hotels Private Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC125(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. All the above-mentioned petitions have been filed by hotel owners challenging the constitutional validity of item 150 in First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the demand for sales tax on the basis that they are liable to pay sales tax on articles of food and drink supplied by them to the customers in their hotels under section 3(2) read with item 150 in the First Schedule to the Act. 2. Writ Petition No. 256 of 1985 is filed by the Tamil Nadu Hotels Association represented by its President. The State Government has filed its counter in all the other petitions but was not able to file the counter in W.P. No. 256 of 1985, but having regard to the fact that the questions involved in all these petitions were purely questions of law, we have heard Mr. Ramachandran who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, along with the counsel who appeared in the several petitions mentioned above. It is not now in dispute t...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Rangahathan and anr. Vs. P.L.N. Gupta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Mad348
Gokulakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by K.Shanmukham J. in Appln. No. 2648 of 1982. In Appln. No. 3902 of 1976, the appellants herein prayed for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties relating to the taking of the accounts of the dissolved firm Yelchur & Co., situated at No. 2. Ramakrishna St, Madras 1,and at Madhanapalli. N. S. Ramaswami J. appointed Mr. M. Shamdas, who is a retired District Judge and now practising as Advocate, Madras, as Arbitrator on 24-2-1977 to decide the dispute between the parties relating to the taking of accounts of the dissolved firm 'Yelchur and Co.' with a direction that the Arbitrator while passing the award shall take into consideration as to whether the mediator gave any finding and whether that finding had been accepted by both the parties or not. The Arbitrator, after taking up the proceedings, passed his first order on 12-11-1979 on the direction petition (be) filed by the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhirthammal Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1294
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is preferred by Sukhirthammal challenging the legality of the order made in M.P. No. 3839/78 and M.P. No. 6062/80 in M.C. 283/78 on the file of the IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows : The petitioner filed M.C. 283/78 under Section 125, Cri. P.C., before the IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, against her husband, the respondent herein (Subramanian), seeking an order of maintenance for herself and her to minor children. On 29th June, 1978 an ex parte order was passed by the learned Magistrate directing payment of a sum of Rs. 250 p.m. to the petitioner and' Rs. 100 p.m. to each of the minor children, all totalling a sum of Rs. 450 per mensem. The respondent filed a petition in M.P, No. 3077/78 before the learned Magistrate for setting aside the ex parte order; but that petition was dismissed on 2-11-1978 due to the non-appearance of the respondent. Subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Soundararajan Vs. Sayee Finance by Its Partner, B. Balasuramaniam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ214
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Erode, ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor revision petitioner.2. In execution of the decree in O.S.No. 172 of 1981, the respondent-decree-holder filed an execution petition for arrest of the revision petitioner herein. The learned District Munsif passed the following laconic order:No counter filed, Respondent called absent and set ex parte. Means proved. Arrest by 17th March, 1984. 3. One of the contentions taken by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned District Munsif has not followed the rules prescribed under Order 21, Rule 40, Civil Procedure Code. He invited my attention to the proviso to Section 51(b), Civil Procedure Code and stated that the Court has to see whether the judgment-debtor has or had since the date of decree the means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof and refused, and having not stated so, the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Second Additional Labour Court, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ505Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal filed by the management of Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Madras, is directed against the judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., upholding the award of the Labour Court, dated 4th May, 1978, in L.D. No. 192 of 1977. 2. The appellant, in view of the recession towards the end of 1975 and the beginning of March, 1976, effected reduction of labour and that resulted in the retrenchment of fifteen of its workers. That gave rise to a reference to the Labour Court on the question of non-employment of the said fifteen workmen and the said reference was taken on file as Industrial Dispute No. 192 of 1977. The claim petition filed before the Labour Court in the said reference by the workmen was to the effect that there had been a contravention of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in effecting retrenchment and that, therefore, all of them should be reinstated in service with full back-wages. The said claim was opposed by the appellant-management before the Labour Court o...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. the Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ432
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal filed by the Management of Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Madras, is directed against the judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., upholding the award of the Labour Court, dated 4th May, 1979 in I.D.No.192 of 1977.2. The appellant, in view of the recession towards the end of 1975 and the beginning of March, 1976 effected, reduction of labour and that resulted in the retrenchment of 15 of its workers. That gave rise to a reference to the Labour Court on the question of non-employment of the said 15 workmen and the said reference was taken on file in I.D.No.192 of 1977. The claim petition filed before the Labour Court in the said reference by the workmen was to the effect that there had been a contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act in effecting retrenchment and that therefore, all of them should be reinstated in service with full back wages. The said claim was opposed by the appellant-management before the Labour Court on the ground that all the...
Tag this Judgment!The Venkataramana Dispensary and Ayurvedic College Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR128]; (1986)IILLJ411Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner is an institution established under a Trust Deed of late V. Krishnaswami Iyer, a Judge of this Court, dated 22nd November 1905. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that this Institution is purely an educational institution, whose main object is to impart Ayurvedic medicinal system and give practical training in the preparation of medicines to the students in the Ayurvedic College. It is further alleged that the dispensary is run mainly to impart practical training analogous to house-surgeoncy in the regular allopathic medicine and in the course of the practical training medicines are prepared under the advice and guidance of doctors teaching in the college and such medicines are given to the patients who come to the dispensary for treatment. It is further alleged in the affidavit that such medicines are given freely to the patients and only those who can afford can pay for it. With various other allegations, the petitioner has pr...
Tag this Judgment!Enfield India Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC15; 1985(5)LC2331(Madras); 1985(22)ELT389(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners filed this writ petition to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings No. 846 of dated 22nd August, 1978. As per this order, the first respondent has held that the replacement parts cannot be treated as original equipment parts entitling the exemption contemplated under Notification No. 101 of 1971-Central Excise. 2. The short facts of this case :- The petitioners are the manufacturers of motor cycles. They purchase original parts from the market and assemble the motor cycles. For such purchase there is an exemption in the excise duty. This exemption can be spelt out by the Notification No. 101/1971-Central Excise which reads as follows :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts motor vehicle parts, namely, brake linings, clutch facings, engine valves, gaskets, nozzles, and nozzle holders, piston rings, shock absorbers, thin walled bearings and tie...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Subramaniam and ors. Vs. Elumalai Gramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ26
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants are defendants 1, 4, 5 and 11 to 17 in O.S.No. 448 of 1974 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and respondents 2, 3 and 4 are defendants 3, 9 and 10 respectively. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs. 17,890/- stated to be the amount due to him from the defendants under the following circumstances: An extent of 15 acres and 94 cents comprised in Survey No. 311/1 and situated at Kottivakkam Village near Tiruvanmiyur. Saidapet Taluk, belonged to one A.K.Srivat-san. A.K.S rivatsan entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 27.2.1962 as per Ex.A-1, agreeing to sell the land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 31,880/- and received an advance of Rs. 3001/- from the plaintiff. As per this agreement, A.K. Srivatsan agreed to convey plots of land as per the requirements of the plaintiff. On 4.2.1963, as per Ex.B-4, the plaintiff entered into an ag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »