Chennai Court March 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tirupur Cone Winding Owners Association Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC275; 1986LC494(Madras); 1986(26)ELT513(Mad)
ORDER1. When cotton yarn plain straight real hanks in loose form grey or dyed in various colours, is converted into cones, it is liable to payment of Central Excise duty is the question for consideration in this petition. According to the Central Excise authorities, the conversion of cotton yarn hanks in loose form into cones constitute 'manufacture' and hence, Central Excise duty is attracted. 2. The petitioner-Association made a representation to the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, to grant exemption to the members of its Association from payment of excise duty on the cone yarn would on the Cone Winding machines. The petitioner-Association stated that its members are getting dyed cotton yarn in loose form from the dyeing factories and then wind them into cones with the aid of power by means of Cone Winding machines. The dyed cotton yarn is supplied to the manufactures of hosiery products. Some of the members being very poor, they are doing cone winding on job-change basis on...
T. Seeralan Vs. the Presiding Officer Ii Additional Labour Court and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ85Mad
ORDER1. Petitioner was a workman employed as a Stores Attender in the canteen run by second respondent company at Mount Road. He was charge sheeted on 10th November, 1976 stating that, on that day at about 9.30 a.m. when he was searched by the watchman, he was concealing in his hip pocket 102 canteen coupons valued at Rs. 24.48 and which have not been punched and, therefore, which could be used and having thus removed it to a place away from the counting place, he had contravened Certified Standing Order 23(4), which relates to theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Company's business or, property, and, therefore, he was called upon to submit his explanation. By his explanation dated 11th November, 1980 he admitted that he had carried in his hip pocket the coupons instead of leaving them at the place where he was counting, mainly because some bags had come and rain also having set in, he had to go away from the place of counting and when he was unloading the rice bags, the M...
Sri Chakra Tyres Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Superintendent o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: 1988(14)LC219(Madras)
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. This Writ petition coming on for hearing on Monday the 3rd Wednesday the 5th and Thursday the 20th day of March, 1986 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 28.10.1985 and made herein, and the Counter and Reply affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the first respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Raghavan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. N. Jothi, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order:The matter arises under Central Excises and Salt Act. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a public limited company. It was incorporated on 2.6.1982. Its main object is to manufacture tyres and tubes for automobiles and other rubber products. Some tax concession is ...
Lakshmanan Vs. Manoranjitha Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ174
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. In this proceeding some interesting questions arise relating to execution. The petitioner is the auction purchaser. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore, in E.A. No. 1321 of 1984, which was an application by the respondents herein to declare the execution proceedings as invalid and void, and to order re-delivery of item No. 1.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this proceedings are given below:The petitioner was the highest bidder in the court auction held on 16th February, 1971 of two items of properties in E.P. No. 97 of 1978 in O.S. No. 67 of 1958. The judgment-debtors 1 and 2 passed away. In that execution petition, the respondents herein are respondents 3 and 5 besides other respondents, viz., 4 and 6 to 9. The sale was confirmed on 30th September, 1972. On the strength of the sale certificate, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 1824 of 1972 for delivery of items 1 and 2. On 19th December, 1972, delivery was, or...
Sridharan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Mad)231; [1987]165ITR710(Mad)
NAINAR SUNDARAM J. - The petitioner impugns an order passed under section 65(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner expresses a grievance with reference to the classification of 'standard acre' under section 2(vv)(vi) of the Act, which reads as follows :'standard acre means - one-half of an acre of land used for growing banana, coconut or sugarcane.'The above provision is the one substituted by the Tamil Nadu Act XXXII of 1979. Originally, 'standard acre' for coconut was defined as follows :'(1) one acre of land used for growing coconut and irrigated from Government source of irrigation; or(2) two acres of land for growing coconut and not falling under category (1).'According to the petitioner, the substitution brought about by the Amendment Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled that whoever pleads discrimination must expose the relevant and convincing features in substantia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›