Chennai Court August 1985 Judgments
Sivasubramaiam Alias Kandaswami Vs. Mohideen Pitchal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ235
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The revision petition is against the judgment of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, in O.S.No. 559 of 1981. The defendant is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent filed this action on a lost promissory note dated 18th March, 1974 for Rs. 600 with subsequent interest thereon and costs. The suit was resisted by the defendant-revision-petitioner, but was decreed and hence this revision.3. The first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner defendant is that the suit being one on a lost promissory note, the plaintiff ought to have filed an indemnity bond along with the plaint to indemnify the claims of any other person upon such instrument under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, and this requirement has not been complied with by the plaintiff. No doubt, the plaintiff has not filed the indemnity bond along with the plaint, but he has produced ir before the court subsequently and the court below accepted the same. Hence, this co...
Tag this Judgment!A.W. Dhuruva and Co., Reptd. by Partner A.W. Dhuruva Vs. P.M. Abdul Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ363
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner.2. The respondent herein has filed an application in H.R.C.No. 753 of 1981 before the learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, against the petitioner herein and another petition H.R.C.No. 754 of 1981 against another tenant Raj Sihal under Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) for eviction of the respective tenants on the ground of requirement of the premises for additional accommodation and on the ground of commission of acts of waste that impaired the value and utility of the petition-mentioned premises. The premises is a non-residential building. Both the applications were tried together and a common order was passed. On the side of the respondent herein, he was examined as P.W.I and Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked. On the side of the petitioner herein and the respondent in H.R.C.No. 754 of 1981, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-7 we...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindarajulu, Vs. the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ104Mad
ORDER1. The matters came up after notice of motion. Mr. N. R. Chandran, Additional Government Pleader, represents the respondent. The challenge in these writ petitions is of orders of suspension. It would be sufficient if I refer to the preamble of the order in W.P. No. 8623 of 1985. 'Whereas an enquiry into grave charges is pending against HC 478 Govindarajalu of Kannapuram PS and whereas in the circumstances of the case it is necessary in the police interest to place him under suspension from service with immediate effect'. 2. The language is same in both the cases. The order of suspension is one passed under Rule 3(e)(1)(i) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. It reads as follows :- 'A member of a service may be placed under suspension from services, where - i. an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending' As I could see from the preamble of the order impugned, it is claimed that the enquiry into grave charges ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Savarimuthu Vs. Special Director of Enforcement and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Mad11
ORDER1. The matter comes up for orders regarding maintainability. Against the order impugned in this revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has the remedy of and ought to have resorted to a regular appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under S. 52, Foreign Exchange Re -gulation Act (46 of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act. He has not done so. On the ground that the impugned or4er ignores the policy of the Government and certain instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.2. The power under Art. 227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. It is a power of superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. .By now, it has been settled by pronouncement of the highest Court in the land as ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Savarimuthu Vs. Special Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ206
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter comes up for orders regarding maintainability. Against the order impugned in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has the remedy of and ought to have resorted to a regular appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (46 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', He has not done so. On the ground that the impugned order ignores the policy of the Government and certain instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution, It is a power of superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. By now, it has been settled by...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode and anr. Vs. Yarn and Clo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT281(Mad)
ORDERChief Justice 1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the cotton fabric which is woven out of yarn which his bleached and/or dyed qualify for excise duty under Item 10(a) and (b) or under Item 5(a) and (b) in the second Table to the notification M.F. (D.R. & I) No. 88/69-C.E. dated 1-3-1969 issued by the Government of India. By this notification, the Government of India exempted cotton fabrics falling under Sub-item 1(2) of Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises an Salt Act, 1944 and specified in Column (2) of the second Table from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entries in Column (3) of the Table. The relevant entries in the Table read as follows : The Second Table------------------------------------------------------------------------DUTYSl. No. Variety of Variety of Category-A Category-Bfabrics on fabrics In the case of fabrics Othersentry into at the made from grey which ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthumanicakam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad179
ORDER1. The matter comes up after notice of motion. Mr. N. R. Chandran, Additional Government Pleader, represents respondents 1 and 2 M/s. Row and Reddy represent respondent 3 and 4. The prayer in the Writ petition runs as follows :-'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents I to 3 relating to the Candidates issued for the admission of candidates into B. E. course for the year 1985-86,.quash the same which relates to the Diploma holders, in so far as it affects the petitioner's right and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to frame uniform norms in respect of minimum marks after reserving a quota for the Diploma holders for admission into B. E. course and also to consider the application of the petitioner on such rev...
Tag this Judgment!J. Antony Costa Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ150
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Land Tribunal, Tirunelveli inC.M.A.L.T. No. 12 of 1980, confirming the order passed by the Authorised Officer in MRI 64/A/NGR (17/70) and (41/71).2. The facts involved in this Revision are as follows: One Antony Costa was allowed to hold an extent of 88.170 ordinary acres equivalent to 42.360 standard acres under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58/61. After the Amendment Act 17/70 came into force, he was directed to file his return. Since he failed to do so, notice under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act was issued on the basis of the materials collected by the Field Staff, directing him to appear for the enquiry on 11.4.1977 and during the enquiry, he filed a petition on 25.4.1979 contending inter alia that his family consists of five members including himself, his wife, two minor sons and a minor daughter, as on 15.2.1970, that by virtue of a partition dated 2.10.1970 be...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Deccan Sugar and Abkari Company Ltd., Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC201; 1986(24)ELT259(Mad)
ORDERChief Justice1. This judgment will dispose of writ appeal Nos. 313 and 310 of 1980 which arise out of the orders in W.P. Nos. 551 of 1977 (Aruna Sugars Ltd. by M. Srinivasan Executive Director, Pennadam - W.P. 551/77 - The Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co. Ltd. represented by its Mg. Director, S. N. Lal v. The Union of India represented by the Collector of Central Excise and another, Madras and W.P. 1625 of 1978 respectively. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are sugar manufacturers. We are concerned with Item 1 of a notification issued on 12-10-1974 by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The relevant portion of that notification reads as follows : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar described in column (2) of the table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!C. Natarajan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ357
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In these writ petitions at the instance of the same petitioner, he has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the second respondent in No. 3760/E5/78-2 dated 3.4.1979 and in 3760/E5/79-1 dated 2.4.1979 respectively, by which the second respondent proceeded to give paper promotion to respondents 3 to 53 in W.P.No. 2727 of 1979 and respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. No. 5772 of 1979. Since common questions arise for decision in these writ petitions and the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are dealt with together.2. The petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Statistical Investigator in the year 1969 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was appointed to that post on 19.8.1970, he having fulfilled all the prescribed qualifications. The Statistics Department was brought into the fold of Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service and the following categories of officers were included therein...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »