Chennai Court July 1985 Judgments
inspector of Central Excise, Sivakasi and anr. Vs. S. Sornam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC382; 1986(24)ELT279(Mad)
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is wholly a frivolous appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, who had quashed a demand made by the Excise department on the footing that for the purpose of excise duty, the quantity of 'Bengal Lights' (which are also matches) manufactured have to be clubbed together with safety matches. Admittedly, the Union Government has issued two notifications prescribing different rates of duty in respect of safety matches and 'Bengal Lights'. The notification in respect of matches is Notification No. 162/67 dated 21-7-1967 and the notification with regard to 'Bengal Lights' is Notification No. 45/61 dated 1-3-1961. Under the latter notification, the Central Government has exempted matches of the type known as 'Bengal lights' when manufactured in a factory whose output does not exceed 500 million matches per year and packed in boxes containing on an average not more than 10 such matches, from the payment of so much of the excise duty leviabl...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Mudaliar Vs. T. Palani Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ270
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The revision is against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram is A.S.No. 112 of 1982 returning the memorandum of appeal presented before him against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Villupuram, in O.S.No. 206 of 1980. The appellant-defendant is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent filed the above suit in O.S.No. 206 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Villupuram, against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 680.25 due on a promissory note for Rs. 500. The defendant-revision petitioner pleaded failure of consideration to the tune of Rs. 250 and claimed the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980. Both the contentions were found against by the learned District Munsif, who decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred A.S. No. 112 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96(4), C....
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Punyakoti Vs. M. Meera Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ345
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, J.1. These revision petitions disclose how mechanically additional documentary evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellate authority who was dealing with two appeals filed by the landlady and the tenant respectively. This order disposes of two revision petitions filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction which is made against him by the appellate authority on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide need of the landlady of the premises in question for her own occupation. The Rent Controller had accepted the case of the landlady with regard to the wilful default, but had rejected the claim on the ground of owner's occupation. Since a decree for eviction was passed, the tenant filed an appeal challenging the decree for eviction and the landlady also filed an appeal because her claim for bona fide requirement of the premises in question for her own occupation was rejected. Both these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Marimuthu (Since Deceased), Vs. the Superintendent of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ229Mad
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar C.J.1. This order will dispose of only the preliminary point which arises, namely, whether the present appellants which are the legal representatives of the deceased original petitioner were entitled to be substituted in the writ petition which was filed by the original petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 7th April, 1973 dismissing him from Government service. Since the relevant facts leading to the dismissal will be dealt with by the judgment which will be delivered later on merits, it is only necessary to refer to the salient facts that are material fit the purpose of deciding the preliminary point which arises in the appeal. 2. The deceased appellant was a Head Constable against whom certain charges were framed and in disciplinary proceedings, he came to be dismissed from service on 7th April, 1973. His appeal also came to be dismissed on 13th September, 1973. On 29th September, 1975 he filed a writ petition in this court challenging the said dis...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Lallubhai and Company Exports Madras (P.) Ltd., Bombay Vs. In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC352(Mad)
Sengottuvelan, J.1. The above unnumbered petitions have been filed to quash the four prosecutions pending before the 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, launched by the commercial tax department for certain alleged violations in the matter of filing returns and non-payment of taxes, etc., against the petitioner who has got business both at Bombay as well as at Madras. 2. So on an initial objection taken by the office, relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the abovesaid petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners was fully heard on the question of maintainability. The contention of the petitioners is that even though criminal proceedings are pending before the 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, which is the court subordinate to the Bombay High Court, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above petitions to quash the proceedings before the said Magistrate, who is not subordinate to this Court. In support of the above contention, the learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Industrial Unit, Represented by Its Proprietor, J.S. Ramamoorth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ664
ORDERV. Rathnam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a proprietary industrial unit, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to come forward with a scheme for nursing the petitioner industrial unit. The proprietor of the petitioner is a qualified engineer. In 1970 the 1st respondent announced a scheme known as 'entrepreneur Scheme' to aid and assist by way of financial assistance and expect guidance for setting up of small scale 'industries by enterprising and technically qualified and skilled persons. Under that scheme, if a qualified entrepreneur of experience craftsman having personal attributes like character, integrity and possessing the requisite knowledge in a particular line and managerial ability, desired to set up worth while projects with prospects of successful operation and reasonable assurance of repayment, the State Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') expressed willingness to offer financial support. The assist...
Tag this Judgment!Jagir Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad183
ORDER1. The petitioners, who are said to have been involved 'in an offence of smuggling sandalwood from the Reserve Forests have filed this application for permission to have their lawyer by their side in the course of investigation in the above said crime registered as O.R.No.3 of 1985-86 on the file of the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nilgiris circle. In the application, it is stated that if they are not accompanied by their counsel, they are likely to be subjected to harassment and coerced to make incriminating statements. The granting of such a relief is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the investigation into an offence should necessarily be kept confidential till a charge sheet is filed.2. The point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to the presence of their advocate when they are interrogated during the preliminary investigation by the Assistant Conservator of Forests prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Hany Gupta Vs. Madras Port Trust and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ482Mad
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate writ petitions challenging the order of the promotion made by the Chairman on 22nd December 1979 promoting eight persons out of whom six persons were Junior Engineers being degree holders and two were General Foremen. All these were promoted as temporary Assistant Executive Engineers. The contention of the petitioners who are diploma holders before the learned single Judge was that the ratio of 1 : 4 between the diploma holders and the Junior Engineers was an arbitrary exercise of the power by the Chairman and that the Chairman had no power to fix the ratio for promotion of Foreman and Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. These contentions have been negatived by the learned Judge and that order is challenged in these appeals. 2. Admittedly, both the appellants initially entered the service of the Port Trust as Supervisor Grade II. The next promotional post of the Supervisor Grade...
Tag this Judgment!Harry Gupta and anr. Vs. the Madras Port Trust Represented by Its Chai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ73
N.M. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate writ petitions challenging the order of the promotion made by the Chairman on 22.12.1979 promoting eight persons out of whom six persons were Junior Engineers being decree-holders and two were General Foremen. All these were promoted as temporary Assistant Executive Engineers. The contention of the petitioners who are diploma holders before the learned single Judge was that the ratio of 1:4 between the diploma holders and the Junior Engineers was an arbitrary exercise of the power by the Chairman and that the Chairman had no power to fix the ratio for promotion of Foremen and Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. These contentions have been negatived by the learned Judge and that order is challenged in these appeals. 2. Admittedly, both the appellants initially entered the service of the Port Trust as Supervisor Grade II. The next promotional post of the Supervisor Grade II i...
Tag this Judgment!Jivaraj Motilal Vs. Marthaka Plastic Industries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ256
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2440 of 1979, II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the petitioner in this civil revision. In that suit filed on 21st March, 1979 under the provisions of Order 37, C.P.C. the petitioner had prayed for a decree against the respondents herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,160 with interest and costs stated to be due on three promissory notes, dated 20th August, 1975, 4th November, 1975 and 9th March, 1976 respectively. Along with the plaint, the petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 5947 of 1979 praying for an order of attachment before judgment over the house and the ground bearing door No. 3, Krishna Iyer St., George Town, Madras-1. On that application, on 3rd April, 1979, notice calling upon the respondents to furnish security returnable by 19th April, 1979, was ordered. On 12th April, 1979, counsel undertook to appear and on 17th April, 1979, a vakalat on behalf of the respondents (defendants) was filed in the suit. Subsequently, o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »