Chennai Court July 1986 Judgments
Abdul Azeez Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1171
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1.This is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner is a small grocery merchant in Ulundurpet. His shop was visited by the Food Inspector, Ulundurpet Town Parichayat on. 7-12-1980 at about 9 a.m. The Food Inspector purchased gingili oil and sent it for analysis after complying with all the formalities prescribed under law. Upon the jreport of the Public Analyst to the effect that the oil contained 4.4% of celeic acid as against the maximum of 3.0% prescribed by clause A. 17(11) to Appenedix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also that the said oil was unfit for human consumption, the Food Inspector filed on 21-1-1981 complaint before the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, South Arcot Division. Charges were framed against the revision [petitioner for offences punishable (under Sections 2(1a)(a)(f) and 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Preventi...
Tag this Judgment!Selvarajan and Company Vs. Registrar of Companies, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas220(Mad)
Mohan, J. 1. By consent of both parties , the writ petition itself has been taken up to day for final disposal. 2. The writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to receive computer-printed memorandum and articles of association as printed matter for the purpose of section 15 of the Companies Act , 1956, and to issue certificate of incorporation after following necessary formalities. 3. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner is a firm of chartered accounts which undertakes preparing of memorandum and articles of association for several companies. It also respects the promoters of new companies for presenting the memorandum and articles before the Registrar of Companies for obtaining the certificate of incorporation. Under section 15 of the Companies Act, 1956, the memorandum and articles of association shall be printed , be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively and be signed by each subscriber. Under section 33 of the Companies Act, the memorandum and a...
Tag this Judgment!Plastubes Represented by Its Partner S.V.S. Ratnam Vs. the Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ324
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The petitioner is the allottee of the respondent in respect of Developed Plot Number 28 (North Phased) with an extent of Order 42 acre at Developed Plot Estate, Guindy, Madras-32. The conditions of the allotment are incorporated in the deed of assignment dated 21st February, 1975. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of calling for and quashing the respondent's Order dated 30th July, 1985 bearing Ref. No. 58599/N3/84 by issue of a Writ of Certiorari or such other proper direction or Order because under the said Order the respondent refused to revoke its earlier Order of cancellation made in Ref. No. 41448/N3/77, dated 3rd December, 1979.2. The relevant facts to be noticed are set out below : The deed of agreement is dated 21st February, 1975. The petitioner was put in possession of the allotted site on 19th June, 1975. No objection certificate regarding the approval of the plan was issued on 27th October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!D. Jayaraman Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad215
ORDER1. The petitioner by challenging the constitutional legality and validity of the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.dt. 14-5-1986 abolishing the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council, seeks a declaration declaring the resolution for the abolition of ,the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly under 'Art. 169(1) of the Constitution on 14-5-1986 as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred as follows. The 'impugned resolution was passed in utter disregard of all principles of democrary. The Legislative Council of Tamil Nadu had become an institution of great importance due to its hoary past service of several decades to the cause of Parliamentary system o Government and invaluable contribution to the growth of laws. Its performance has alway been such that it brought much respectability to the Legislature. Fearing that the Opposition party (D.M.K. party) is ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Raman Vs. the Management of Kundah Rural Cooperative Agricultural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ487Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner, who was employed as a Security of the first respondent, was sent out of service on 16th March, 1977. It is the case of the first-respondent that the petitioner was sent out of service on a charge of misconduct. The charge memorandum issued contains as many as five charges and they relate to disobedience of orders of the Special officer; staying away from duties; dereliction of duties; negligence of duties and falsification of accounts. The petitioner filed an Appeal under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to the second respondent. In that Appeal petition, as we could see from the copy furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would contend that there was no enquiry conducted. The relevant averments are found in paragraphs 10 to 14 in the Appeal Petition, as follows :- 'The Special Officer of the Society framed charge memo on 4th September, 1976 and the applicant was call...
Tag this Judgment!A. Syed Ali Vs. University of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad124
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The facts which have been brought to light in this appeal indicate how a Master's Degree in Laws has been utterly devalued by the authorities of the University by making a rule that Master's degree could be obtained by passing the examination in unlimited number of installments. Normally, the holder of a Master's degree from a University of the status and reputation of the Madras University Would immediately invoke high regard and respect but if the manner indicated by Regulation 3(A) is the manner in which that degree is to be conferred on the holder of the degree, it will cease to be a symbol of scholarship and erudition which at least some years back a Master's degree in laws was always looked upon.2. The appellant sat f or the M. L. Examination of the Madras University in July 1978 for the first time. Unfortunately for him he failed in all the subjects. In 1979, a new Regulation seems to have been made, by the University possibly as a part of its efforts to make ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Chandra Textiles Private Limited Coimbatore Vs. N. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ458Mad; (1987)IMLJ269
Srinivasan, J.1. The first respondent was employed as a Turner in the Mechanical Section of the appellant's Mills. The appellant framed four charges against the first respondent, and, after a domestic enquiry, dismissed him from service on 4th September, 1971. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the second respondent, and it was taken on file as I.S. No. 81 of 1972. The Second respondent, without going into the merits of the case, rejected the claim of the first respondent by order dated 19th October, 1972 on the ground that the first respondent had not made a demand against the Management claiming reinstatement and that there was no industrial dispute. After making a demand, the first respondent raised a dispute against and it was referred to the second respondent for adjudication, by the Government on 23rd August, 1974, which was numbered as I.D. No. 79 of 1974. Against the reference, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!New India Maritime Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Director, En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC128
Sathiadev, J.1. Appellant before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, Madras in Appeal No. 353 of 1978 is the appellant herein. The appellant was found guilty of contravening Section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') under two counts, and of Section 9(1)(a), and a consolidated penalty of Rs. 250 for charges under Section 5(1)(c) and a penalty of Rs. 300 for the charge under Section 9(1)(a) was imposed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras by his order dated 25-3-1978. The contravention alleged as against appellant was with regard to a payment of Rs. 672.50 by order and on behalf of M/s. Island Shipping Co., Hongkong, towards the expenses incurred for the stay of two persons of the said company in Taj Mahal Hotel at Bombay, and in making a payment of Rs. 2,000 to one Kousalya Sambandam on behalf of M/s. Island Shipping Co., Hongkong, without the general or reserve permission of the Reserve Bank of India...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Chandra Textiles (P.) Ltd. Vs. N. Palaniswamy and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ269
Srinivasan, J.1. The first respondent was employed as a Turner in the Mechanical section of the appellant's Mills. The appellant framed four charges against the first respondent, and after a domestic enquiry, dismissed him from service on 4th September, 1971. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the second respondent, and it was taken on file as I.D. 81 of 1972. The second respondent, without going into the merits of the case, rejected the claim of the first respondent by order dated 19th October, 1972 on the ground that the first respondent had not made a demand against the Management claiming reinstatement and that there was no industrial dispute. After making a demand, the first respondent raised a dispute again and it was referred to the second respondent for adjudication, by the Government on 23rd August, 1974 which was numbered as I.D. No. 79 of 1974. Against the reference the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. 34 98 of 197...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Umapathy and anr. Vs. T.A. Masilamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad156
1. This is an appeal by the defendants to the suit, O. S. No. 364 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, filed by the respondent herein on a promissory note, which was decreed as prayed for by the trial Court. The respondent laid the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,931/-due on Exhibit A-9, the suit promissory note dated 12-2-1973 executed by the appellants-defendants in favour of one Kandaswami Gounder of Peramampalayam for Rs. 10,000/. Exhibit A-1 is the endorsement of assignment dated 15-5-1975 made on the reverse of the promissory note by the said Kandaswami Gounder in favour of the respondent herein after receiving the consideration due under the promissory note. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the appellants borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the promisee, Kandaswami Gounder, on 12-2-1973, for their family necessity and for their lorry business expenses and executed the promissory note for the said sum agreeing to pay back the same with interest at 12 pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »