Chennai Court May 1985 Judgments
R. Karuppan, Advocate Vs. the Government of India, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ504
ORDERM.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Indian Government to take suitable military measures to put an end to the International Crime Genocide which is being perpetrated in Sri Lanka and to pass such other orders as the Court deems fit, on the following grounds.2. It is contended by the petitioner, who appeared in person, that genocide is being committed by Sri Lankan Government over the residents Tamilians who are in minority. The Indian Government, which ought to have taken immediate International Police measures against this country, is turning a deaf ear to the cries of Tamilians in Sri Lanka, inspite of their prayer to seek help from India. The opposition parties of our Nation have also expressed an unanimous view that the Tamilians in Sri Lanka should be helped and steps should be taken against Sri Lanka for their acts of genocide, which will be the only solution to end the continuin...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs, (Prosecution) Preventive Department, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC58; 1987(29)ELT853(Mad)
1. This is a appeal against acquittal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Madras against the acquittal of the respondent in respect of a offence under section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. 2. On 6th June, 1978, the officers attached to the Madras Customs House, on information, searched the godown belonging to the accused which is situated at No. 1, Narayana Mudali Lane Madras-1, in the presence of independent witnesses. The accused is a partner of O. K. Agencies occupying the godown. During the search, 776 dozens of table-tennis balls of Chinese origin were recovered and when questioned the accused produced an invoice dated 4th August, 1976 which covered 950 dozens of table-tennis balls purported to have been issued M/s. Allied Supply Syndicate of Calcutta. The accused merely showed the invoice and refused to handover the same to the Customs Officers. Accordingly, the 776 dozens of table-tennis balls were seized as they were clearly of foreign origin and sin...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collector of Customs (Prosecution) Preventive Dept. Vs. Dharamp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: 1988(14)LC249(Madras)
Singaravelu, J.1. Appeal under Section 378(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the acquittal of the aforesaid Respondent (Accused) of an offence under Section 135(l)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act 1962 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in C.C. No. 1164 of 1979 on his file.This Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 28th day of February and Friday the 29th day of March 1985 upon perusing the Petition of Appeal and the record of the evidence and proceedings before the said Lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and of Mr. K.A. Panchapakesan, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following judgment:This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras, against the acquittal of the respondent in respect of an offence under Section 135(l)(b) of the Customs Act...
Tag this Judgment!S. Varadarajan Vs. the Special Officer, T.U.C.S. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ359
ORDERK. Venkataswamy, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the same individual questioning initially a show cause notice issued by the first respondent in W.P. No. 1598 of 1984 and subsequently questioning the order of dismissal by the respondent in W.P. No. 6703 of 1984.2. As the matter relates to the same individual and the facts are also common, these two writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are the following: The petitioner, at the time of the issue of show cause notice was working as Supervisor in the Triplicane Urban Cooperative Society Limited, Madras-5, hereinafter called the 'TUCS'. A show cause notice on 15th June, 1983 was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain the charges set out in the show cause notice within seven days from the date of its receipt. The charges levelled against the petitioner along with three others were:1. that they issued rationed commodities in excess against th...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Vanaspathi Limited Vs. S.V. Chandrapandian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-1985
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ62
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. These two O.S. appeals have been filed, one by M/s. Madras Vanaspati Limited and the other by its Managing Director against the order dated 30th November, 1984 passed by Shanmukham, J. in Company Application No.502 of 1984 directing the convening of the meeting of the company on 2-1-1985 and appointing Thiru S. Vijayarangam as Chairman of that meeting.2. The circumstances under which the above order came to be passed may briefly be noted: The appellant in O.S.A. No. 212 of 1984 has been acting as the sole Managing Director of the Madras Vanaspathi Limited from 1977. In or about 1981, there was an attempt on the part of some of the shareholders to remove him. At that stage the concerned parties agreed for an arbitration and the arbitrators entered upon their duties. However, there was a controversy as to whether the shareholding of the said company was one of the terms of reference. According to the said appellant the arbitrators are expected to give their award ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Chennai Bottling Company, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: 1986(8)ECC70; 1986(24)ELT3(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. This is a case referred to this Court by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referring the following two questions :- 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the letter dated 2-2-1973 and 14-3-1973, can be construed to be a protest in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the protest, if any, related to the question of valuation only or could cover rate of duty as well at the instance of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, as arising out of its order dated 9-8-1983. 2. The facts which gave rise to the above reference are as follows : The respondent herein is a manufacturer of aerated waters assessable to duty at all material times under Item No. 1-D of the First Schedule to the Act, 20% ad valorem during the financial year 1973-74 and 20...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ145
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In this writ appeal, the Government of Tamil Nadu has questioned the correctness of the order of Mohan, J. in W.P. No. 10308 of 1982 holding that there was no legal sanction whatever for the second respondent to hold the additional post of Director of Legal Studies and issuing of a Writ of quo warranto. As far back as 1953, by G.Q. Ms. No. 30, Edcuation, dated 5.1.1953, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Honorary Director of Legal Studies with the status of the head of a department with powers to correspond directly with the Government. He was in charge of matters relating to legal studies in the State and also performed the functions of the Principal of the Law College and during the tenure of the post of Honorary Director, the post of Principal of the Law College, Madras was kept in abeyance. Sri C. Kunhiraman, a retired Judge of this Court, was made the Director of Legal Studies till 30th June, 1955 and he was assisted by...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Vishanji Fatnani Vs. Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ331
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28-3-1985 of Sengottuvelan, J. in Application No. 211 of 1985 in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984, dismissing the same. The said application had been filed by the appellant herein to implead himself as second respondent in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984 and for directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly.2. The facts leading to the filing of the said application by the appellant may briefly be noted: One Dungarmal Bachumal Futnani died on 1st April, 1983, leaving a will and a codicil dated 28th June, 1982 and 29th March, 1983 respectively. He has left behind him two sons and eight daughters. The sons are Mohanlal D. Futnani and Vishanji Futnani. The wife of the deceased predeceased him. The first respondent herein, Mohanlal D. Futnani filed O.P.No.262 of 1984 for the issue of a probate in respect of the will claiming to be the named executor under the will. In the said O.P.No.262 of 1984 the son of the first respondent, viz., the secon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›