Chennai Court July 1985 Judgments
Smt. Sri Lakshmi Vs. Muthuveeran Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ420
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. Landlady is the petitioner in both the revisions. She has filed H.R.C.O.P. Nos. 473, 474 and 475 of 1977 for eviction of three tenants who are occupying different portions of the premises bearing Door No. 162, Big Bazaar Street, Tiruchirapalli, on the ground that she requires, the same for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section l4(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960). The petitions which are the subject matter of these two revisions are H.R.C.O.P.Nos. 474 and 475 of 1977. According to the petitioner, her husband is running embroidery business and in order to improve the said business, she wants the building to be demolished and reconstructed. It is also urged that the building is very old. The said claim was resisted by all the three tenants on the ground that the petitioner had filed prior applications for eviction on different grounds and she was unsuccessful and in order to ...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Electric Appliances, TuticorIn Vs. Superintendent of Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(8)ECC87; 1986(23)ELT302(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the Excise authorities were justified in rejecting the price at which the appellant manufacturer sold its products to Messrs Philips India Ltd. as the wholesale cash price. 2. Admittedly, we are concerned in this appeal with the sales of electric appliances, namely, water heaters manufactured by the appellant during the period 1-3-1969 to 14-11-1969. 90 per cent of the production was sold to Messrs Philips India Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 265, Rs. 308 and Rs. 348, for water heaters having a capacity of 25, 35 and 45 litres respectively. The remaining 10 per cent of the production was sold to retailers at the rate of Rs. 340 - 45, Rs. 394 - 36 and Rs. 444 - 36. At one stage, the first respondent had approved the price list at the rates at which goods were sold to the retailers. However, the Deputy Collector later on by order dated 3-1-1970 changed these rates to Rs. 386 - 75, Rs. 446 - 25 and Rs. 501 - 50. The...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Electric Appliances Vs. the Superintendent of Central Excise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)LC278(Madras)
1. This Writ Appeal coming on for hearing on this day the Court delivered the following Judgment.The judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable The Chief Justice.The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the Excise authorities were justified in rejecting the price at which the appellant manufacturer sold its products to M/s. Philips India Limited as the wholesale cash price.2. Admittedly, we are concerned in this appeal with the sales of electric appliances, namely, water heaters manufactured by the appellant during the period 1.3.1969 to 14.11.1969. 90 per cent of the production was sold to M/s. Philips India Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 265/-, Rs. 308/- and Rs. 348/- for water heaters having a capacity of 25, 35 and 45 litres respectively. The remaining 10 per cent of the production was sold to retailers at the rate of Rs. 340-45 p, Rs. 394-26 p. and 444-36 p. At one stage, the first respondent had approved the price list at the rates at which goods were sold to...
Tag this Judgment!K. Periasami Vs. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1721
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant K. Periasami against the judgment dated 11-3-1980 in C.C. No. 249/78 on the file of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Usilampatti, finding that the complainant has not proved his case against the accused A-1 Rajendran and A-2 Kandasami the respondents herein-beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitting them under Section 248(1), Cr. P.C. It is also held by the lower court that the remedy for the complainant is available only in a Civil Court.2. The case of the complainant against the accused is in brief as follows : - The complainant is employed in Benner India, Madurai. He had arranged for a pleasure tour for several places. For 26-1-1978 to 30-1-1978, the complainant as well as the persons who were employed with him, the members of their families and friends joined together and arranged for a pleasure tour. A-2 Kandasamy is living in the adjacent house of the complainant. The complainant and P...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kesia Pillai Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT537(Mad)
ORDERChief Justice 1. The writ petitioner, who is the appellant herein, is a dealer in tobacco. On a stock taking being conducted by the Central Excise department, between 17-1-1973 and 19-1-1973, it was found that there was a total shortage of 12091 kgs. in the warehouse. A notice to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for contravention of Rule 223-A and Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, herein after referred to as the Excise Rules, and why duty should not be demanded on the said quantity of 12091 kgs. tobacco was issued. 2. The explanation given by the appellant shows that there was heavy driage of the tobacco and it had undergone too many turnings for preservation which has resulted in loss of weight. 3. The Collector of Central Excise took the view that the loss in some cases was unduly large and by way of illustration he referred to a loss of 41.3% in the case of Cheroot tobacco which was stored for a period of 3 months and 21 days while in another ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Karunakaran and Brothers and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Assi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ152
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether when admittedly urban land is owned by two co-owners and has been partitioned between them, a joint assessment in respect of the entire land is permissible under the provisions of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1986.2. The total area of the urban land in question is 6 grounds and 1851 sq.ft. On the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax in assessment proceedings, he came to the conclusion that local enquiries disclosed that two families, namely, Thiru T.R. Karunakaran and Brothers and Thiru T.G. Srinivasan and brothers were separately enjoying the properties in question and the rent from the properties was also shared by the two families as also the municipal assessment stands jointly in the names of the two families. However, the assessing authority held that there was no separate enjoyment by the members of the two families and he, therefore, proceeded to assess...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohideen Sahib Vs. theodre Samuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ354
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner. The respondent herein filed a petition for eviction under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), for eviction of the petitioner herein, on the ground of wilful default. The case of the respondent is that he let out the petition-mentioned premises to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and that the petitioner has not paid rent from January, 1981 onwards and thus has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from January 1981 to June, 1981. It is further alleged that the petitioner in order to cover up his default caused a notice dated 20.6.1981 to be issued to the respondent, on false and untenable grounds calling upon the respondent to specify a Bank in which the rents have to be deposited. In reply, the respondent directed the petitioner to deposit the rents in the Current Account in the Grindlays Bank, N.S.C. Bose Road. But the petitioner has no...
Tag this Judgment!Rasu Pillai Vs. Additional Tahsildar (Kudiyiruppu) Mayiladuthurai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad134
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition claims that he was an occupant of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Conferment of Ownership) Act 1971 (Act XJ of 1971) hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 19-6-1971 he applied for the kudiyiruppu patta seeking determination of the question as to whether he was in such occupation or not. According to the petitioner he is an agriculturist cultivating nanja lands of about 4.13 acres belonging to the 4th respondent as a tenant and further he is occupying a site measuring 7 cents in S. No. 108 in Mannamparithal vattam, Mayiladuthurai taluk, and the superstructures put up thereon, both belonging to the 4th respondent. The petitioner would characterise his occupation of this site of an extent of 7 cents as occupation of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. The 4th respondent contested the case of the petitioner stating inter alia that the demise was not only of this site of 7 cents but also of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Industries (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas425(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. O.S.A. No. 128 of 1981 is against the order dated August 19, 1981, in Company Application No. 844 of 1981 and 0. S. A. No. 189 of 1981 is against the order dated December 7, 1981, in Company Application No. 843 of 1981. Both these applications were filed pending Company Petition No. 30 of 1981, which is a petition filed under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of a company by name Ramakrishna Industries Private Ltd. Company Application No. 843 of 1981 is for the appointment of a provisional liquidator pending disposal of the main company petition and C.A. No. 844 of 1981 is an application filed under Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Order 39, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for an order of injunction restraining the appellants herein from borrowing any moneys from banks, financial institutions or others without the prior permission of the court and from alienating and/or creating an...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Damodaran Vs. the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ118
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant who was initially appointed temporarily as a messenger in the Food Corporation of India on 3.2.1965 was discharged on 22.8.1966 with effect from 29.6.1966. He was re-appointed on 2.7.1966 also on temporary basis and was transferred to Avadi on 20.8.1967. On the same day, he was also given intimation that he was likely to be ousted by the end of the first week of September, 1967, and accordingly he was relieved of his duties from 6.9.1967 by a separate order.2. The appellant approached the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras by way of an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act gives a right to a person employed in an establishment to appeal to such authority as may be prescribed either on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services or on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »