Chennai Court July 1986 Judgments
Ellammal and anr. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC546; AIR1987Mad80
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengelpattu in M.O.P. No. 320 of 1979 on its file.2. The facts are: - On 15-8-1977, the lorry bearing registration No. MDJ 4264 was proceeding from Kancheepuram to Sriperumbudur with rice bags loaded in it. The owner of the lorry, Rajamanickam, was also in the lorry. When the lorry came near Sunkuvarchatram, at 12.15 p.m., respondent 3, Head Constable, and two other constables attached to the out-post police station at Sunkuvarchatram controlled by the Sriperumbudur Police Station, came out of the station and flung a plank containing a number of nails in it before the lorry. That resulted in the puncture of the tyres. The vehicle went out of control and dashed against a tree resulting in the death of the owner, Rajamanickam, and the driver and a cooly. Deceased Rajamanickam was aged 23 years at the time of his death. As owner of the lorry, he was earning Rs. 1500 per month.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Rangaswamy Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC242
1. The appeal is preferred against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,000 on the appellant for the contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Initially the first authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 and also confiscated the amount of Rs. 30,000 which was seized from the custody of the appellant, under Section 23(1B) of the said Act. On appeal, the order of confiscation was confirmed ; but the penalty alone was reduced to Rs. 3,000.2. It was claimed that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 30,000 on 4-9-1971 from an unknown person in India by order of his friend, Ramu Thevar from Singapore without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. When the appellant's premises was searched on 8-9-1971, the amount of Rs. 30,000 in Indian currency was seized along with a foreign aerogram dated 21-8-1971. He also gave a statement on 8-9-1971 disclosing the manner in which the amount had come into his hands from Ramu Thevar. Acting on this statement,...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. N. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC240
Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India claiming that the appellate Court having found factually that there had been a contravention of Section 5(1)(aa), 5(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 yet it absolved the respondent from liability mainly because under Section 23C the firm had not been proceeded against and action was confined only against the respondent in his individual capacity. Hence, the substantial question of law raised is:In spite of the firm or a company not being proceeded against under Section 23C of the Act, cannot a partner or a director respectively be proceeded against for any contravention under the Act ?2. Mr. Veeraraghavan, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that when the respondent had taken active part in the conduct of the affairs of Sri Venkateswara Bankers, a partnership firm; and but for his commissions and omissions, when the firm could not be held responsible, even though by mistake, n...
Tag this Judgment!India and Foreign Traders Vs. Special Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC244
Sathiadev, J.1. Action was initiated by respondent against appellant and its Proprietor Mr. C.T. Rajagopal under Section 12(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with notification No. 6(8) EF. 11/52 dated 22-4-1952 claiming that during June and August 1972 they had effected shipments of bicycle chains, spare parts, etc., to Kualalampur and Singapore declaring the said shipment under GR I forms for a total value of 37,620.94, but did not realise the sale preceeds in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. When the premises of appellant was searched on 20-9-1973, it resulted in certain documents being seized and a statement was recorded from the proprietor, who disclosed how the transaction with four firms in those places were entered into and dealt with and in what manner the guarantees were secured for these transactions from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter referred to as E.C.G.C) and finally about entire cost of exports received from E.C.G.C, be...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. by Hindustan Constructi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ451Mad; (1987)IMLJ40
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This writ appeal arises out of a dispute between he workmen of the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., Madras and the Management of the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., Madras. As many as 321 workmen were terminated by the Management on 20th March, 1973. A settlement under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was entered into between the Management and five workers purporting to represent the entire body of workers. This settlement was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 23rd June, 1973. In pursuance of the settlement 310 workers were taken back while 11 workers were not so taken back in employment. A dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court, Madras, as to whether the non-employment of eight workmen was justified and if not to what relief were they entitled. The dispute ultimately was prosecuted only in respect of seven workers. The Labour Court framed a prel...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ40
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal arises out of a dispute between the workmen of the Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Madras and the Management of the Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Madras. As many as 321 workmen were terminated by the Management on 20th March, 1973. A settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was entered into between the Management and five workers purporting to represent the entire body of workers. This settlement was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 23.6.1973. In pursuance of the settlement 310 workers were taken back while 11 workers were not so taken back in employment. A dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court, Madras, as to whether the non-employment of eight workmen was justified and if not to what relief were they entitled. The dispute ultimately was prosecuted only in respect of seven workers. The Labour Court frame...
Tag this Judgment!Unnis, V.A. Vs. Management of M.A. Khizar HussaIn and Sons and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ484Mad
Chandurkar, C.J.1. When C.M.P. No. 5681 of 1986 for directions is taken up today, it is conceded by both the learned counsel for the parties that a decision on the interim application in this case is enough to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant employee. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. During the pendency of the writ petition against the order of the Labour Court filed by the employer directing reinstatement and payment of backwages, the employee claimed the benefit of S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The interim relief claimed by the employee under S. 17-B of the Act was denied by the learned Judge on the ground that there was nothing in that provision to suggest that the High Court should direct the management to pay full wages last drawn by the workman. The learned Judge took the view that the employee will be at liberty to work out his remedies in the light of S. 17-B of the Act. It is obvious that the learned Judge was in error in dir...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnaswamy and anr. Vs. Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ479
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. In proceedings for determination of surplus land under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, the petitioner has been held entitled to hold 15 standard acres, while his actual holding has been found to be 19.67 acres, and to the extent of 4.67 standard acres has therefore been declared surplus. While determining the total holding of the petitioner, his share to the extent of 8.96 acres in grama Samudayam lands, the extent of which is 131.87 acres has been taken into account. The appeal filed by the landowner against this order of the Authorised Officer has been dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, who also rejected the contention that the share in Samudayam lands should be excluded.2. In this revision petition, the Learned Counsel has reiterated his contention that 4.67 acres of Samudayam land should not be taken into account for determination of his holding. Now, admittedly, the petitioner holds patta with respect to his share in the Samudayam ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Anantharaju Vs. the State Transport Authority, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad245
ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up today. The writ petition is for declaring the draft scheme published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dt. 22-3-1983, in respect of the route Krishagiri to Kolar Gold fields via Kundarapalli, Veppanampalli, Kothakrishnapally, Kanamanabally, Beemanganapally, Kamasandha and Kalari cannot have an extra-territorial authorisation of validity. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on an unreported ruling of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in D. P. Sharma v. The Karnataka State Transport Authority, W.Ps. 3496 to 3498 of 1982, dated 16th April, 1984 : (reported in (1985) 2 KLJ 16. The only point urged before me is that the draft scheme does not have extra-territorial authorisation. In opposing this, the learned Advocate General relies on Premchand v. State of M.P., AIR 196 Mad 196 wherein at page 201, in Para 9 this very point was answered in the negative.2. On a careful consideration of the above, I am of the vie...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Subramaniam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamps) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad260
Srinivasan, J.1. After notice of motion, this appeal comes up for admission today. Heard the counsel for both parties. Appeal admitted. By consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of today. 2. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by two erstwhile partners to whom immovable properties were allotted in the dissolution of the firm evidenced by a deed of dissolution dated 28-3-1983. There were four partners in the firm. The appellants were allotted the immovable properties in the deed of dissolution. The other two partners executed a release deed on 21-1-1984 in favour of the appellants. The said deed was stamped as a release deed. The District Registrar, Dindigul, demanded stamp on the footing that it is a deed of conveyance and on revision the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority confirmed the same. The appellants approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition to quash the same. The said writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »