Chennai Court July 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.
Palaniswamy Gounder Vs. Chellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ23
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner herein wanted the status of a tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (10 of 1969), hereinafter referred to as the Act. He succeeded partly before the 4th respondent. There were appeals, one by the petitioner and the other by the first respondent who is admittedly the land owner within the meaning of the Act. The appeal by the first respondent was dismissed and the appeal by the petitioner was allowed. As a result, the petitioner fully succeeded in his claim to have his name recorded as the tenant under the Act. The first respondent preferred a revision to the second respondent and the second respondent opined differently, allowed the revision and directed deletion of the name of the petitioner from the record of tenancy rights. That is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of his writ petition.2. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, apart from canvassing the mer...
A. Ramaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, Health ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ362
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal relates to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 2 in the entry in Column (2) against Category 2 Nursing Tutors II Grade in Branch II of the Special Rules for the Madras Medical Service. The said proviso was introduced by CO. Ms. No. 2998 H.E. and L.A. dated 10th October, 1957, whereby appointments to the Post of Nursing Tutors II Grade from among Women and Men were directed to be made in the ratio 3:1.2. The appellant was appointed as a Nurse in the Year 1957 in the Madras Medical Subordinate Service, Branch III Category and after completion of probation he was confirmed on 1-4-1960. Alleging that because of the ratio fixed by the proviso referred to above, he lost his chances of being appointed as Nursing Tutor II Grade by transfer from the Category of Nurses in the year 1976, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in this Court for the issue of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider his name for being appoin...
Universal Match Works Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC132(Mad)
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 137 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, the defendant has filed the above second appeal. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant is a manufacturer and dealer in matches. They sold matches and in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956) was levied on the sale of matches and the amount so levied was paid by the appellant under protest. Subsequently, the appellant herein filed W.P. Nos. 2703 to 2706 of 1967 (W.P. No. 2705 of 1967 Universal Match Works, Kovilpatti v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras-5) for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras to refund to the appellant the amounts so paid by them which was collected towards tax. These writ petitions along with other petitions came up before Veeraswami and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ., on ...
A.S. Mohamed Ghani Vs. Special Additional Director, Enforcement Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC316
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The order impugned is one passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of an appeal before it preferred by the petitioner herein against the imposition of penalty, under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), and the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 in each and also to furnish security of either movable or immovable property for a sum of Rs. 45,000. Section 52(2) of the Act contemplates that the penalty imposed should be deposited as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. The second proviso to Section 52(2) of the Act reads as follows:Provided further that where the Appellate Board is of opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may, in its own discretion, dispense with such a deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may deem fit.The impugned order shows that the Appellate Board has tak...
V. Kader Ibrahim Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC139
Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against an order of the Appellate Board in A. No. 355 of 1979 dated 30-10-1980 by one V. Kader Ibrahim as against whom, two charges were framed to the effect that he had contravened Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 23-B of the Act in attempting to make a payment of Rs. 50,000 to one Veerappan by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India, and hence, to show cause as to why the said currency notes seized on 4-5-1973 be not confiscated under Section 23(1B), and secondly, contravened Section 5(1)(c) by making a payment of Rs. 25,000 to a person in India by order and on behalf of a person resident outside India. It was claimed by respondents that appellant was employed under one Jamal Mohamed, who was carrying on business of making compensatory payments at No. 185, Angappa Naicken Street, Madras-1, on a monthly salary of Rs. 100 and that he was making compensated payments alon...
A. Naina Mohamed Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC337
T. Sathyadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings arrived at by both the authorities that the appellant had contravened Sections 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. Two show cause notices were issued, resting on a statement made by the appellant claiming that a sum of Rs. 80,000 had been received from a person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange by order or on behalf of one Shahul Hameed, Singapore, a person resident outside India. A search warrant was issued on 14-2-1972, but the search of the appellant's premises was effected on 3-5-1972, when he had given a detailed statement. The search resulted in taking custody of three sheets of papers containing names of individuals and amounts paid to them and certain other documents. Both the authorities found that in respect of Rs. 49,000, items 33 to 81 in the list tallied with the three chits recovered from the custody of the appe...
Director of Enforcement Vs. K.N. Rajannam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC314
G. Maheswaran, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Director of Enforcement against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board in FE. RAB/1094/76, dated 29-12-1978.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts are: The respondent herein and the other appellants before Board are the partners of M/s. Chikkanna Silk House. They have exported goods of the value of Rs. 1,75,480 against GRI form No. 307153 dated 17th December, 1963. The charge against them is that they have refrained from taking action with intent to secure the payment for the goods valued at Rs. 1,75,480 exported with the result that the value of the goods remained unrealised. The respondent herein was therefore guilty of contravention of the provisions under Section 12(2) read with Section 23C of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.3. The defence was that though the firm M/s. Chikkanna Silk House, represented by the respondent and others, have written to the foreign buyers to realise the amount, ...
A. Kamal Batcha Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC135
Maheswaran, J.1. This appeal by one Kamal Batcha is preferred against the order of Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Southern Zone), finding him guilty under Sections 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act'). A penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras-6, for the violation of Section 5(1)(aa) and that was confirmed by the Board. The penalty of Rs. 500 imposed under Section 5(1)(c) was reduced to Rs. 250 by the Board. The appellant challenges that order of the Board in this appeal.2. The gravamen of the charges is that the appellant, a resident of India received Rs. 12,800 from local persons other than authorised dealers in foreign exchange without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India under instructions from residents outside India and that he has also made a payment of Rs. 500 to local persons unauthorisedly under instructions from residents outside In...
Aravind Laboratories Vs. V.A. Samy Chemical Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad265; (1994)IMLJ174
ORDER1. One Aravind Laboratories, a registered firm represented by its Senior Partner A. V, Srinivasan, has filed the above suit for (1) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant V. A. Samy Chemical Works from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale 'Kajal' with the offending trade mark Rani Eyevix; (2) accounting and for recovery of profits earned by the defendant by way of damages for the infringement; and (3) for directing the defendant to surrender all the cartons, labels and any other printed matters containing the offending Rani Eyevix trade mark together with the blocks.2. The allegations in the plaint are briefly as follows:- The plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been dealers in cosmetics for about 50 years. Their main products are Kajal used for beautifying the eye and Kum Kum used by Indian ladies. In the year ending 31-3-1983 the Plaintiffs turnover amounted to Rs. 1,58,14,125/-. All their 24 different types of products arc known in the market by their...
N. Marimuthu Vs. the Deputy Director of Printing Directorate of Statio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ57Mad; (1991)IMLJ402
ORDER1. The petitioner was employed as a foundry worker in the Government Press. For the theft of mono-metal weighing about 540 grams and worth about Rs. 20, he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and therefore, was dismissed from service under the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 14th July, 1980. 2. For the same offence, he was prosecuted in C.C. No. 18991 of 1979 before the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. However, he was acquitted on 5th August, 1980 as the learned Magistrate held that the guilt was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The acquittal by the Magistrate did not weigh with the Ist respondent (appellate authority). Government and thus, it allowed the petitioner's dismissal dismissal to stand by its order dated 24th December, 1982. It is thus two orders are sought to be quashed in this proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Department oug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »