Chennai Court December 1985 Judgments
Fathimuthu Vs. Ghouse Ahmed Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ412
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff Fathimuthu in O.S. No. 116 of 1976, on the file of. the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1979 in A.S.No. 100 of 1978, on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dismissing the appeal with costs of the contesting respondents and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's half share in the suit properties, for future mesne profits and for costs.3. The case of the. plaintiff in brief is as follows;- One. G.M. Ghouse and his wife originally owned the suit properties and other properties and they had executed a Hiba on 19.3. 1931 in favour of their grand children by name Aliaudeen, Fathima Bivi, K. Shafia Bivi, Kathija Bivi and K. Ameena Bivi who were minors then. The guardian of the donees took possession of the properties and the gift deed was acted upon. Under t...
Tag this Judgment!Asst. Registrar of Companies Vs. Southern Machinery Works Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas670(Mad)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. This batch of revision petitioners arises out of a common order passed by the learned Third Metropolitan Magistrate, Madrad, upholding the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaints and dismissing the complaints filed by the Assistants Registrar of Companies against several companies and the directors of those companies under section 162 of the Compensation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ' , for failure to file the amount return and certificate under section 161 of the Act and failure to file the balance-sheet , etc., as provided under section 220 of the Act. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken in all the question under revision on behalf of the companies and the directors that the prosecution cannot be launched against all the directors for failure to comply with any provisions of the Act but should be filed only against the company and those director who are in default under the Act, and since the complainant ha...
Tag this Judgment!QutubbuddIn Syed Shah Mohammed Bakher Sahib Vs. Hindustan Petrolieum C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ196
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This revision petition filed by the original decree-holder is directed against an order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge of Vellore, requiring the petitioner to pay Court-fees on the amount which he wants to withdraw in pursuance of the order of this Court by which a conditional stay of delivery of possession was granted. The petitioner, is the plaintiff, who had sued for recovery of possession of the suit property and a sum of Rs. 6,000 as damages for use and occupation. The suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to pay Rs. 3,000 towards the past mesne profits and an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure was directed for determination of the future mesne profits.2. The defendant filed an appeal against this decree which is pending in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court directed that the rent should be paid in Court from time to time. Thus, a sum of Rs. 24,160 is now lying in Court deposit. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India Vs. Prema Metal Works, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC247; 1986(26)ELT529(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. This batch of 54 writ appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as the only substantial issue raised in all these cases is common. The issue is, whether the goods imported by the respondents answered the description of 'Stainless Steel Plates and Sheets' as contained in Item 63 (20-A) appearing in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act as contended by the appellants/Revenue or fell under Item 63(14) which is to the effect 'Cold rolled hoops and strips of stainless steel of 250 mm. width or more' as contended by the various respondents/importers. If the goods imported are found to fall under Item 63(20-A), then the duty payable by the respondents will be at the rate of 100% ad valorem. If, on the other hand, the goods imported are found to fall under item 63(14), the duty payable will be 40% ad valorem. A subsidiary question that might arise if the goods are found to fall under Item 63(14) is, whether the duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem is further red...
Tag this Judgment!English Electric Company of India Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ141Mad
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ Appeals Nos. 1235 of 1983 and 72 of 1984. Both these appeals arise out of the order of Mohan, J., in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1983, which filed by the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the company) challenging an award on the Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu in Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 1981. The Industrial Tribunal held that the services of the 131 casual employees of the company were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and they were, therefore, entitled to be re-employed with back-wages. As regards the fifty other casual employees, the Tribunal took the view that they should be re-employed without back-wages since they were accustomed to non-employment on various spells of break in service. By the impugned order, Mohah, J., held that the relief of reinstatement with back-wages could be given to only 131 workmen and that the award in respect of the 50 workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas Tvs, Madras Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC292; 1987(12)LC1213(Madras); 1987(28)ELT266(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The substantial question which arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the determination of the stage at which goods can be treated as having been exported out of India for the purpose of drawback allowance claimable under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Central Act 52 of 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner-appellant is a manufacturer of electrical accessories for automobiles and other engines. The appellant company had in February, 1974 filed shipping bills for export of certain items of goods manufactured by it and these goods were loaded on the ship M.V. Ratna Usha. Admittedly, the goods were assessed for export duty and examined by the customs authorities. However, after the cargo was loaded on the vessel, there was a fire in the ship and some of the goods were destroyed. The entire consignment of destroyed and damaged goods was unloaded. The goods sold by public auction to a...
Tag this Judgment!indo Foreign Traders (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Mad)181; [1987]166ITR308(Mad); [1986]25TAXMAN120(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a private limited Company. It entered into an agreement with one Associated Drug Company Ltd., Yercaud, hereinafter called the Drug Company, on June 28, 1947. Under that agreement, the drug company nominated, constituted and appointed the assessee as sales organisers for the whole of India, Burmah and Ceylon, for their products. The assessee, under this agreement, shall have to organise the sales of the drug company's products over the territories mentioned above. As such sales organisation, the agreement further provided, that the assessee shall been titled to a commission of 45 per cent. on the listed prices for original sales packing and 25 per cent. on all bulk packing. Out of this commissioner, the assessee has to pay the dealer's commission, distributor's discount, salaries, allowances, commission payable to propagandists, office staff, rent, etc., i.e., all expenses involved in the establishment and maintenance of the sales organisation. The ag...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughavel Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sri Ramkumar Ginning Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Mad28
1. The defendants in 0. S. No. 2 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, are the appellants in this second appeal. They have preferred this second appeal against the Judgment and decree dt. 18th Sept. 1985 in A. S. No. 115 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The suit was filed for injunction to restrain the defendants appellants herein and their men not to start a brick kiln and chamber in the V schedule property. The plaintiff succeeded before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred A. S. No. 115 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal before this Court.2. The case of the plaintiff M/s. Ramku...
Tag this Judgment!Rajathi Rajasingh Vs. the Aluminium Products Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad362
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioning creditor under Sections 9(2) and 10 to 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to adjudicate the respondents as insolvents.2. The grounds on which the above petition is filed, are that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 9100 of 1981 before the 17th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits. The said suit was decreed on 28-4-1984 and as per the decree the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 88,179.75. It is the further case of the petitioner that under the provisions of the amended Insolvency Act, insolvency notice was sent to the respondents in I.N. No. 9 of 1985 calling upon them to pay the above sum. Though the respondents acknowledged the said notices on 6-4-1985 and 9-4-1985 respectively, they did not, choose to send any reply nor comply with the said notice and hence they have committed an act of insolvency under Section 9(2) of the Act. According ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A.V.S. Private Ltd. and ors., S. Vijaymm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)127; [1987]166ITR285(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These are references under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The widow of one deceased, A. V. Srinivasalu Naidu, as an accountable person, submitted a returned. Two deductions are in question. The first related to a decree debt in OS No. 232 of 1961, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore and the other a compromise decree against the deceased, A. V. Srinivasalu Naidu, in OS No. 254 of 1956, on the file of the same court, amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. 2. Shortly stated, the facts in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977 are these : The deceased, A. V. Srinivasalu Naidu, was a partner in a firm called R. G. C. Naidu & Company, Coimbatore, which were the managing agents company. In respect of certain misappropriations committed by the managing agents, the managed company filed OS No. 232 of 1961, above referred to, claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 8,27,449, That suit was referred to, claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 8,27,449. That suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,8...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »