Chennai Court August 1986 Judgments
Venkateswara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC164; 1987(12)LC55(Madras); 1987(27)ELT648(Mad)
ORDER1. The Petitioner in these six Writ petitions wanted to bring stainless steel circles imported by it under Headings 73.15(1) of the First Schedule, hereinafter referred to as the Schedule, to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (No. 51 of 1975). That has not been accepted by the Authorities concerned and they have brought the stainless circles under Heading 73.15(2) of the Schedule. Heading 73.15 as a whole reads as follows : Heading Sub-heading No. and Rate of Central ExciseNo. description of Duty Tariff Itemarticle------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)73.15 Alloy Steel and highcarbon steel in theforms mentioned inHeading Nos. 73.06/07to 73.14 26AA(1) Not elsewhere (a) 60%specified(2) Coils for (a) 300%rerolling,strips, sheetsand plates, ofstainless steel 2. According to the petitioner, stainless steel circles imported by it cannot fall within the category of 'sheets' under Heading 73.15(2) as opined by the Authorities and they could only...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C. Ranganthan Vs. S.A. Chinnadurai Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ138
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a revision petition by the landlord challenging the order made by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate Court holding that the entire extent of 3.grounds and 2387 sq. ft. of land belonging to the petitioner was liable to be sold to the tenant-respondent under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent-tenant had admittedly taken 3 grounds and 2387 sq. ft. of open site on a monthly rent of RSection 25 for the purpose of carrying on his business in selling firewood. Before the landlord instituted the suit for possession, he had made an offer some time in 1976 to the tenant that he was willing to sell the entire land at the rate of RSection 50,000 per ground. The land is situated in Sait colony, Egmore. The tenant however did not accept that offer and therefore the landlord terminated the tenancy and offered to purchase the super which was then on the land at RSection 750....
Tag this Judgment!Chettinad Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR552(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner wanted to avoid the mischief of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act (V of 1955), hereinafter referred to as ' the Act', in respect of an extent of acres 13.77. According to the petitioner, this extent was the subject-matter of an agreement of sale deed dated December 22, 1969, in favour of one Meenakshi Achi and she has been put in possession thereof and hence the petitioner could not be deemed to be the person owning or holding the said extent of land within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. This contention of the petitioner has been repelled by all the authorities who are respondents herein. The orders of the authorities are being put in issue in this writ petition.2. Mr. T. Chengalvarayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that when possession of that extent of land has been parted with in favour of the transferee under the agreement of sale, the petitioner cannot be held to be a person owning or holding t...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Ayye Chatram Represented by N. Hariharan Honourable Addition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ79
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The lands covered by a deed of Trust dated 31st January, 1978 were the subject-matter of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The trust in question represented by its honorary trustee is the petitioner in this writ petition. The contention raised by the petitioner before the respondents was that the lands are those held by a religious trust of a public nature falling under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act and hence the Act would not apply to such lands. This contention has not been accepted by the respondents and the ultimate order passed by the second respondent is being impeached in this writ petition.2. The deed of Trust lays down that the income from the lands after the expenses shall be utilised for feeding Brahmins on Dwadasi days. It is not in dispute that the said objects of the Trust are being carried out. The second respondent opined as follows-Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Chettinad Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Mad)82
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. - The petitioner wanted to avoid the mischief of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act (V of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of an extent of acres 13.77. According to the petitioner, this extent was the subject-matter of an agreement of sale deed dt. 22-12-1969 in favour of one Meenakshi Achi, and she has been put in possession thereof, and hence the petitioner could not be deemed to be the person owning or holding the said extent of land within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. This Contention of the petitioner has been repelled by all the Authority who are respondents herein. The orders of the Authority are being put in issue in this writ detition.2. Mr. T. Changalvarayan, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that when possession of that extent of land has been parted within favour of the transferee under the agreement of sale the petitioner cannot be held to be a person owning or holding the land within the meaning of s...
Tag this Judgment!Hi Life Tapes P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC326; 1986(26)ELT935(Mad)
ORDER1. Pursuant to the notice of motion issued in the morning, Mr. T. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the respondents appeared. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal and disposed of accordingly. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the appeal pending before the first respondent against the orders of the second respondent, an application for stay was filed and in spite of reminders, the first respondent had not taken up the said application and passed orders thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the trade notice dated 16.4.1985 issued by the Department of Central Excise which reads as follows : 'It has been represented that coercive action to realise arrears from the Assessee is being taken before the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal. It is clarified that no steps to recover disputed dues will be taken till one month after expiry of the period of appeal, that is to say, upto four months from th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jyothi (Alias) Arundathi Vs. Sarojini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ260
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two appeals O.S.A. 9 and 10 of 1978 are filed by the unsuccessful applicant in Appln. Nos. 2997 of 1974 and 2667 of 1975 in O.P. 252 of 1973 on the file of the Original side of this Court, challenging the common orders dismissing both the applications filed seeking permission to sell the petition mentioned property.2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows : The appellant and the respondent are sisters, being the daughters of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal who executed a registered will dated 15-12-1967 by which the testatrix bequeathed the property in question. viz, premises No. 75, Perumal Mudali St, Madras 1, in favour of her two daughters during their life time without powers of alienation and thereafter in favour of the children of both her daughters with absolute right. The testatrix died on 29-2-1972. As there was no love lost between the sisters, the appellant herein filed O.P. 252 of 1973 and obtained Letters of Admini...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sangameswaraswamy Temple, by Its Executive Officer, Fort Vs. A.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ47
Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1548 of 1972, District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid by the deceased first respondent, (whose legal representatives are respondents 2 to 15) for a declaration of his title to the superstructure in T.S. No. 2/1309 in Perumal Koil Street, Nandavanam, Mottamedu, Coimbatore town, and for an injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing an order of eviction obtained by it in R.C.O.P. No. 385 of 1967. According to the case of the deceased first respondent, he took on lease from the appellant a vacant site measuring 22 feet east to west and 80 feet north to south in T.S. No. 2/1309 in Perumal Koil Street, Nandavanam Kottamedu, Coimbatore town, belonging to the appellant in 1953 and after levelling it up, put up a construction thereon incurring considerable expenditure. The further case of the deceased first respon...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nagarathinam and anr. Vs. K. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ257
Srinivasan, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 605 of 1982, District Munsif's court, Nagarcoil, who are mother and son, have filed this second appeal against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, reversing that of the learned District Munsif and granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that she is entitled to one third share in the suit property and directing a division of the same in addition to ascertainment of her share in the income.2. The suit property admittedly belonged to the mother of the first appellant and her sister, the respondent. After the death of the mother in 1976, the father of the first appellant and the respondent executed a gift deed on 27.6.1979 in favour of the second appellant giving the entire property to him. The said gift deed was attested by the respondent. Alleging that she was not aware of the gift deed until the defendants put forward the same, in reply to a demand for partition made by her after the death of the father, th...
Tag this Judgment!C. Essak Vs. Susal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ414
Swamikkannu, J.1. Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists' Temporary Relief Act, XV of 1976 and Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons' Temporary Relief Act, XVI of 1976, are the provisions relating to exclusion of time for purposes of limitation, wherein good faith is pleaded by the creditor in instituting suits belatedly, that is, beyond the period of limitation. The suit had been laid before the lower Court on foot of two promissory notes, marked as Exs. A4 and A5 and the suit had been decreed, believing the evidence of the plaintiff who had gone into the box as P.W. 1. The only witness on behalf of the defendant is none other. than the defendant himself, who was also the scribe of both the promissory notes on which the suit had been laid.2. The three main issues that were framed for consideration by the lower Court are:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount as prayed for as per her accounts?2. Whether the plaint promissory notes are not supported by co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »