Chennai Court June 1985 Judgments
Union of India and Anr. Vs. Raj's Continental Exports Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC369; 1987(27)ELT256(Mad)
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The above writ appeal filed by the Union of India, is directed against the order of Venkataswami, J. in writ petition No. 1429 of 1985. It appears from the facts of the case and as argued by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondent, a small scale unit, is a manufacturer and exporter of readymade garments in Bangalore. For the purpose of its business, the respondent used to import from time to time consignments of staples from Japan. Such imported staples are used for stapling the readymade garments while packing the materials. In February, 1985, the respondent imported certain consignments of the staples pins from Japan by the vessel s.s. OCEAN WEALTH. The relevant documents for clearing the said consignments under I.M. No. 144/85 were presented to the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondent classified the goods under Heading 73.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. But the Assessing Authorities expressed the view that on an earlier occ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Plywood Manufacturing Company Vs. Balaramiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ48
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition challenging an order of eviction made by the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and confirmed in appeal by the VII 3udge, Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The landlord is admittedly the owner of the three premises, one is house No. 2/30 (New No. 5) Nainiappa Maistry Street, Madras, the other is No. 97-B, Woodharf, Wall Tax Road, Madras, of which the landlord is the owner of superstructure alone, and the third is the premises in question bearing door No. 169, Coral Merchant' Street, Madras-1.2. The petition premises No. 169, Coral Merchant Street, Madras, is occupied by the Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1050/-. The landlord made a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, in which he put-forth the case that his wife and his sons are carrying on business in the name and style of Sri Kanaka...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (B.A.P.) Ranipet-6 Vs. the Government of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ509Mad
1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1482 (Labour) dated 4th July, 1984, in and by which the Government of Tamil Nadu directed a reference of the dispute between the workmen and the management of the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet, North Arcot District in respect of bonus for the accounting years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The Supervisor Union, BHEL/BAP, Ranipet, raised an industrial dispute against the management of Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet over the issue of payment of bonus for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Conciliatory talks were held by the Commissioner of Labour in this dispute. The other unions functioning in the establishment, viz., Boiler Auxiliaries Project, Anna Workers Union, Ranipet also participated in the conciliatory talks. Since no settlement was possible the Commissioner of Labour sent a conciliation failure report to the Government. Thereupon, consider...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kannayiram Vs. Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, by Its Executive Officee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ357
Mohan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this appeal which arise out of O.S. No. 271 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for rent of Rs. 11,200 till 30th April, 1975 and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 90 from 1st May, 1975 to 3rd May, 1975 and for future mesne profits.2. The plaint schedule property which is a vacant site was taken on lease under Ex. A4 for a period of five years by the first defendant. The lease was to commence from 1st December, 1960. In and by the lease deed, the first defendant was authorised to sublet. Accordingly, he sublet the same to S.V.O.C. Limited, dealers in Petroleum Product. After the, expiry of the lease, a fresh lease was executed under Ex. B7, dated 1st December, 1966 for a period of five years. The monthly rent was Rs. 350. Here again, permission was granted for subletting. The purpose of subletting ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., Madras Vs. Superintendent of Central Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT273(Mad)
ORDERChief Justice 1. The appellant-company are manufacturers of rubber products such as tread rubber, camel back, cushion gum, tread gum, cushion compound which is also known as cushion repair compound and tread packing strips. We are in this appeal concerned with the liability of the appellant-company to pay excise duty in respect of the cushion repair compound. 2. In the year 1969 the appellant took the stand that cushion repair compound manufactured by them was not excisable and that they were paying duty under protest. The case of the appellant that cushion repair compound was not liable to excise duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector. An appeal against this order was rejected as time-barred by the Collector on 20th September 1971. A revision petition filed against the order of the Appellate Collector was rejected by the Government of India on 5th October 1972. 3. The appellant once again submitted a classification list on 16th May 1972, describing the product manufactured ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Mariappan Vs. the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ97
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to initiate proceedings under Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shop) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') to direct the third respondent to shift Arrack Shop No. 3 from its present location at No. 6, South Car Street, Srivilliputhur, to some other unobjectionable place. The third respondent was the highest bidder for a licence to vend arrack from Arrack shop No. 3 in Srivilliputhur town and he selected door No. 6, South Car Street, for locating his arrack shop. Certain objections were raised by the residents to the location of the arrack shop by the third respondent in the premises chosen by him on the ground that it is located in a thickly populated residential area and is within 100 metres from the municipal elementary school and further it adjoins a hotel and is also situate opposite to the Court buildings. The e...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Reptd. by the Chief Secretary to the Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ329
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 50 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') at the instance of the Union of India, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Pondicherry, is directed against the order dated 21.3.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Karaikal, in L.T.C.M.A.No. 14 of 1976. The first respondent held 13.45.32 hectares equivalent to 10.59.77 standard hectares of dry and wet lands at Nallathur and Kottucherry villages. Though under the provisions of the Act, ordinarily, he should have filed a return of his holding under Section 7(1) of the Act, he did not do so, which necessitated the issue of a notice requesting him to file a return on or before 7.11.1975. There was no response on the part of the first respondent, with the result that another notice was sent to him to make representations, if any, and to appear before the Authorised Officer on 26.11.1975. On 24.11....
Tag this Judgment!P. Mariappan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ426
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This appeal highlights yet another instance of how the State Government has gone out of its way to accommodate temporarily appointed persons and regularising their services retrospectively prejudicing the rights of direct appointees who have been regularly appointed through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in clear vacancies. We are concerned with appointments to the posts of Assistant Statistical Investigators. Regular recruitment rules made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India on 17th of May, 1966 provided for appointment of Assistant Statistical Investigators in the Department of Statistics by direct recruitment by promotion and recruitment by transfer.2. On 4th September, 1971, the Director of Statistics made temporary appointments by transfer to the category of Assistant Statistical Investigators under Rule 39(a) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. There is one order of appointment in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Rajaram Vs. Mukunthu N. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ173
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the orders of the authorities below directing his eviction from the premises in his occupation, on an application taken out by the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is in occupation of a room in the ground-floor measuring about 10 feet by 8 feet in door No. 52, Krishnapuram 2nd street, Madurai City, belonging to the respondent herein. There is no dispute that the respondent is living with seven members of his family in the first floor portion of this building. According to the respondent, the two rooms and a kitchen available in the first-floor are inconvenient and insufficient to accommodate the members of his family and that water facilities are not available in the first floor. Besides, the respondent also stated that his widowed sister-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chinnakannammal Vs. Biharilal S. Lulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ346
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlady, who succeeded in securing an order for eviction before the Rent Controller on her application filed under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and lost before the Appellate Authority, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The premises in the occupation of the respondent is a portion in the first floor in Door No. 13, Bo Begum Street, Mount Road, Madras-2. The petitioner has two daughters and two sons. The first son of the petitioner, at the time of initiation of proceedings, was about 26 years and her second son was aged about 22 years. The first son of the petitioner was of marriageable age and the petitioner was seeking alliance for his marriage. The second son of the petitioner was pursuing his studies. The petitioner stated that in the event of the marriage of her first son, more accommodation would be required to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »