Chennai Court April 1986 Judgments
Brakes India Ltd., Madras Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC151; 1986LC481(Madras); 1986(26)ELT211(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Padhmanabhah J. in W.P. 3700 of 1977. The petitioners in that writ petition are the appellants; and the respondents therein are the respondents herein. It will be convenient for us if we choose to refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioners are the manufacturers of brake equipments, apart from other motor vehicle parts. We are more concerned with the brake linings over which a controversy has arisen as to whether it will attract the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (Act 1 of 1944), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The point involved is certainly argumentative but at the same time it requires a decision only with reference to the interpretation to be put on the expression 'manufacture' as defined in S. 2(f) of the Act. Certain facts need delineation. The petitioners purchase brake lining blanks from Messrs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd., Madras and other brake lining...
Tag this Judgment!Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem by Its Partner, R.S. Gunasekaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ32
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit against the Electricity Board for a declaration that the application of tariff code mentioned in the plaint is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the defendants. Board from collection the amount. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Court-fees Act, and a court-fee of Rs. 30.50 wits paid on each of the two reliefs. On objection, the lower Court took up the issue of court-fee as a preliminary issue and held that the plaintiff is bound to pay the court fees for the amount which he wants to save by filing the suit, in other words the plaintiff was directed to pay the court-fee on the bill amount of Rs. 5,000 and odd. The plaintiff is aggrieved and he has come forward with this revision.2. I have heard Learned Counsel for both sides. This suit is for a declaratory relief not covered by Section 25(a), (b) or (c), of the Act. The consequenti...
Tag this Judgment!Nehru National Higher Secondary School and Nehru National Middle Schoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ389
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit O.S. No. 151 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, in their capacity as correspondent and Manager respectively of Nehru National Higher Secondary School and Nehru National Middle School, Vadakkankulam, Radhapuram taluk, Tirunelveli district. Their prayer in the suit was for a declaration that the schools are run by a religious minority and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Tirunelveli and the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli South, from interfering with their management by enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Act 29 of 1974).2. Undoubtedly, the Schools are run by Hindu Nadars. Though there is no dispute that Hindus are non-minorities in the State of Tamil Nadu, the contention seems to be that in the particular village, nam...
Tag this Judgment!P.A.K. Palanisamy High School Represented by Its Secretary and Corresp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ64
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner is the Management of P.A.K. Palanisamy High School, at Madras and it seeks for quashing the order of the first respondent being the Joint Director of School Education, Madras dated 30.6.1979, only in so far as it enforces a condition to pay back wages i.e., pay and allowances with all the benefits from the date of removal upto the date of reinstatement of the concerned teachers from the funds of the Management without any claim from the Government funds and for a direction to issue to the 2nd respondent to sanction the payment of staff grant to 18 teachers reinstated in service by the petitioner for the period from 21.4.1979 to 17.7.1979.2. The petitioner-Management claims as follows: In 1979, there was gross and unprecedented indiscipline among several teachers handling Standards IX and X in the petitioner's school, and it went to the extent of themselves enabling students to indulge in mass-copying in the examinations and several other acts of indis...
Tag this Judgment!A. Swamickan Vs. K. Venkatachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad60
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal though rather unusual is a very substantial one and -the question is whether even when the High Court is satisfied that a pers6n who does not possess the basic constitutional and statutory qualification for being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly, the High Court is powerless to prevent him from performing his functions as a member of the Legislative Assembly only on the ground that no one has chosen to challenge his election to the Legislative assembly by filing an election petition under S. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. General elections to the Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu took place in December, 1984. The respondent I filed his nomination paper for election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 159 Lalgudi Assembly Constituency. On 27-11-1984, the proposer has stated in the nomination paper that the first respondent's name has been entered a...
Tag this Judgment!Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad83; (1987)IMLJ32
ORDER1. The plaintiff ' n the suit is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit against the Electricity Board for a declaration that the application of Tariff Code mentioned in the plaint is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the dependents Board from collecting the amount. The plaintiff valued the suit under S. 25(d) of the Court-fees Act, and a Court-fee of Rs. 30 - 50 was paid on each of the two relief On objection, the lower court took Lip the issue of Court-fee as a preliminary issue and held that the plaintiff is hound I,) put the Court-fees for the amount which lie A ants it) save by filing the suit, in other words the plaintiff was directed to pay I he Court-fee on the bill amount of Rs. 5(XX) and odd The plaintiff is aggrieved and he has come forward with this revision.2. 1 have heard learned counsel for both sides. This suit is for a declaratory relief not covered b~ S. 25 of Act. The consequent relief of injunction is not with' reference to...
Tag this Judgment!V. Dhandayuthapani Vs. S.P. Krishnamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad78
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the State Government has power to review its own order made under S. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By an order dated 3-7-1985. The appellant, who carries on the business of running a touring cinema talkies, was exempted from the provisions of R. t4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The first respondent was also granted a 'no objection certificate' in 1980 for locating a permanent theatre in Survey No. 2/1 Singarampettai village, Uthangarai taluk, Dharmapuri Dist. and in pursuance of that certificate, respondent No. I put up a permanent theatre and was also granted a 'C' form licence. The first respondent had thus been exhibiting pictures in his permanent theatre since 29-8-1983.2. The licence of the present appellant was due to expire on 1&4-1984. He, therefore, made an application for exempti...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Seetharaman Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad45
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions, there is no need to encumber the order, with more facts than necessary, because of a formidable proposition, which the real contestant in these Writ petitions finds it unsurmountable and which requires countenance in view of the legal position. It is better to refer to the parties either by their names or by their designations rather than by their array in these two wirit petitions, which is dissimilar. 2. Madura College, a private college, governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act offered Post Graduate degree courses also at the relevant point of time and also satisfied the student strength prescribed, thereby coming within the rule laid down for having a post of a Manager. On 19-1-1979, the director of Collegiate Education, Madras, permitted Madura College to have the post of Manager on purely temporary basis, for a period up to31-5-1979. It must be pointed out that, on the introduction...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Vijayarangam Vs. the State Bank of India, Reptd. by the Chief Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ82
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order of the' second respondent bearing Ref.Acct. No. 646, dated 10th June, 1983 including the said order and quash the same by issue of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any order or any other appropriate writ of like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the State Bank of India till the close of business on 6th August, 1987 (inclusive of two years' non-pensionable service) and pass such further or other order or direction or declaration which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.1. The impugned order, dated 10th June, 1983, directs the petitioner to retire from the service of the respondents at the close of the business on 6th August, 1983. The petitioner's date of birth...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.V. Varadachariar and ors. Vs. Sri Pounderikapuram Swami Ashram, Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ85
ORDERM.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The above revision petitions have been filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in I.A. No. 22998 of 1985 in O.S. No. 7462 of 1983.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1322 of 1986 filed O.S. No. 7462 of 1983 against the first respondent/defendant (Sri. Poundarikapuram Swami Ashramam, Srirangam by its present Head of Institution Sri.Gopala Desika Maha Desikan, Srirangam) praying for a declaration that the name and title 'Srirangam Srimad Andavan Ashramam1 exclusively belong to the Institution of which the plaintiffs are the disciples and the title 'Srimad Andavan' belongs only to the plaintiffs of the said Institution. They also sought an injunction restrainingg the defendant from using the said name or title. A written statement was filed by the defendant. In view of the averments of the plaintiffs and in view of the stand taken by the defendant in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »