Chennai Court October 1985 Judgments
Vijayalakshmi Minerals Trading Co., Madras Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad285
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an exporter of barytes, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the third respondent in C2/23003/82/T, dt.17-8-1982 and C2/33287/ 83/T, dt. 10-12-1983. On 10-5-1982, the petitioner applied for space for storage of barytes in the transit area of the Madras Port By proceedings of the third respondent, dt.31 -5-1982, the petitioner was allotted 2000 sq. metres of transit space at Jawahar Dock-IV with effect from 1-6-1982, for a period of one month under the monthly licence system for storage of barytes. The petitioner was required to-remit a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards security deposit and one month's licence fee in advance. The terms and conditions of allotment of storage space in transit area are governed by the scale of rates framed under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act). At the time of allotment of space to the petitioner the prevailing rate was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Angappa Spinning Mills and ors. Vs. Regional Commissioner, Employe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ235Mad
ORDER1. An interesting question regarding the interpretation of section 17-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Act 19 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for decision in these writ petitions, impugning the order of the respondent herein in proceedings No. E.7/TN/161/Regional dated 10th August, 1979. Though the petitioners are different in the Writ Petitions, the order impugned is the same and as a common question arises for decision they are default with together. 2. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions may now be noticed. A partnership firm under the name and style of Kanakavel Nadar & Sons was running a mill at Madurai known as Raja Mills. The site over which the mills had been put up belongs to a Mutt called Vyasaraya Mutt and the partnership firm had obtained a lease of the site from it. The mill premises comprising of the superstructure as well as the machinery installed therein belonged to the partnership firm Kanaka...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Narasimhan (Deceased) and ors. Etc. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ262
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, though different have prayed for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the orders dated 23rd May, 1979, 16th October, 1980 and 30th October, 1980 passed by the second respondent herein in Case Nos. 15/1315, Tambaram 16/1385, Tambaram and 17/1385 Tambaram respectively. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions may be briefly stated as under:2. All the petitioners own lands in No. 166, Tambaram village. The petitioner in W.P.No. 2569 of 1979 owned a total extent of 42 grounds and 1131 sq.ft. situate in Survey Nos. 330/2c, 331/2c, 274/2 and 274/7 and comprised in Patta No. 778. An extent of 42 grounds and 694 sq.ft. was owned by the petitioner in W.P.No. 6395 of 1980 in four survey numbers 274/3, 274/6, 330/2 and 331/2D in Patta No. 779. 42 grounds and 1130 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos. 274/4. 330/2B and 331/2A were owned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6919 of 1980 in Patta No. 780. All these lands owned by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Angappa Spinning Mills by Partner and ors. Vs. Regional Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ386
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. An interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 17-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Act 19 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for decision in these writ petitions, impugning the order of the respondent herein in proceedings No. E.7/TN/161/ Regional dated 10.8.1979. Though the petitioners are different in the Writ Petitions, the order impugned is the same and as a common question arises for decision, they are dealt with together.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions may now be noticed. A partnership firm under the name and style of Kanakavel Nadar & Sons was running a mill at Madurai known as Raja Mills. The site over which the mills had been put up belongs to a Mutt called Vyasaraya Mutt and the partnership firm had obtained a lease of the site from it. The mill premises comprising of the superstructure as well as the machinery installed therein belonged to the partnership firm K...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Seeta Educational Trust by Its Secy. Yadiswari Saradpriya, Sri Sar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ212
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit property admittedly belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant put forth in the original written statement a plea of gift. The plea could not be prosecuted fruitfully before the two courts below. Even before me in the second appeal Mr. Jagadeesan, learned Counsel for the defendant appellant herein, is not projecting any plea of gift. The defendant has failed before the two courts below in the suit for recovery of possession. The substantial questions of law that have been formulated by this Court at the time of the admission of this second appeal run as follows:1. Whether the courts below are correct in rejecting the plea of the appellant that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act as inconsistent.2. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the benefits of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act.3. Whether or ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohideen Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu by Commr. and Secty. to Govt. Ru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ70
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question which arises for decision before this Full Bench is. whether the Government Order No. 783 issued by the Rural Development Department on 30th April, 1981, giving effect to the guidelines with regard to the determination of seniority of persons who were appointed in the Panchayat Development Units in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service is constitutionally valid. Since the impugned Government Order was issued by the Government admittedly with a view to give effect to the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos. 401, 402 and 403 of 1975 decided on 12.12.1977, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Appeals Nos. 394 to 396 of 1979, filed by the State Government, District Collector of Salem, and the Director of Rural Development, Madras, and since the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No. 462 of 1984, which was taken up along with the writ petitions which raise the same point, challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnavelsamy and ors. Vs. the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd., Through Its Asst ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ329
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The first defendant in the respective suits are the petitioners in these revision petitions. C.R.P. 2 759 of 1984 arises out of judgment and decree in O.S. 117 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court of Manamadurai, while C.R.P. 2760 of 1984 to 2762 of 1984 arise out of the decrees in O.S. 385 of 1982, O.S. 118 of 1982, and O.S. 272 of 1982, on the file of the said Court. The respondent is the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. The respondent herein filed the above suits for recovery of money from the petitioners-defendants in the respective suits due on a promissory note executed by each of the defendants in favour of the respondent - plaintiff with interest at 15-per cent per annum. So far as the suits O.S. 1/7 of 1982 and 385 of 1982 are concerned, the first defendant in the said suits submitted to a decree by filing a memo and the second defendant therein was set ex parte. In respect of the other two suits, viz., O.S. 118. of 1982 and 2 72 of 1982, the defend...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sivaprakash, Proprietor, Precision Associates Vs. the Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ246
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner impeaches the acceptance of the tender of the second respondent by the first respondent and wants this Court to direct the first respondent to accept the tender of the petitioner. The seat of the first respondent is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The very call for tender reads as follows:Tenders complete in all respects to be sent in sealed covers superscribed as 'tenders for unloading, handling and shipment of Barytes Lumps due 23rd September, 1985 3 p.m. so as to reach the Registered Office of the Corporation 11.5.460 Red Hills, Hyderabad 500 004, upto 1 p.m. 23rd September, 1985. Tenders will be opened at the Registered Office at 3 p.m. on 23rd September, 1985 the same day, in the presence of the tenderers or their authorised representatives who are present at the time of opening Representatives of parties who are not the owners proprietors of the tendering company/firm should submit an authorisation letter from the co...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. T. Seetha Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: [1986]15ITD636(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri G. R. Raghavan, Account Member - In this appeal by the assessee against the order of the AAC, Trichy, in his IT Appeal No. 208 (Trichy) of 1982-83 dated 9-4-1984 relating to the assessment year 1980-81 an interesting question has come up for our consideration. The question is whether the sum of Rs. 25,593 being the cumulative credit balance in the current account of the assessee in the books of Kaviram & Co. Madurai, of which she is a partner, written off by the assessee and claimed as a bad debt, or as business loss in the alternative, is admissible as such. Before considering the inherent merits of this claim, a brief recapitulation of the facts in this regard is quite germane to the issue.2. The assessee had been a partner of Kaviram & Co. since a long time. Her share in the partnership profits in one-fifth and her contribution towards the capital of the company is Rs. 5,000. Besides the capital account, her share of profits in the firm has been credited year after yea...
Tag this Judgment!Progro Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Madras Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad282
1. Petitioner claims that it has been manufacturing a pharmaceutical product known as 'Helmizole' since 11-4-1981, and the trade-mark was advertised in the Journal No. 849 dt. 16-10-1984 at page No. 478. Third respondent claims to be the adoptee of the trade mark 'Helmizol' from July 1982, and filed its opposition in Form No. TM 5 to the first respondent under S. 21 of Central Act 43 of 1958 (hereinafter called as the Act). First respondent forwarded a copy of the said opposition to the counsel for petitioner for filing counter-statement, and it was received by him on 20-2-1985. In his diary, instead of noting the last date for sending the counter-statement as 20-4-1985, by oversight he noted it as 20-5-1985. It is, thereafter, realising his mistake, he wrote a letter on 17-5-1985, forwarding the counter-statement in form No. TM 6, with a letter explaining the reason for excusing the delay of one month. However, second respondent by communication dt.20-5-1985 informed the petitioner th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »