Chennai Court September 1986 Judgments
Umsala Bibi and ors. Vs. M. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad145; (1987)IIMLJ18
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed by the defendants in the suit challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the XVI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, passed in I.A. 21484 of 1985 in O.S. 9297 of 1981 allowing the amendment sought for by the respondent by changing the survey number 120 in the original plaint into 121.2. The contention of the petitioners is that by changing the survey number, the character of the suit itself changes and as such, the amendment cannot be allowed. In support of his contention, the case reported in Angammal v. Muthupechiammal Menal, (1976) M U 161 : AIR 1976 Mad 282 -is cited. In that case, it has been held that if the amendment amounts to subtitution of a relief which is different and not asked for in the original plaint and if under the guise of the amendment a distinct and separate prayer is sought to be introduced in the pleading, it would not be amendment at all, but it would be setting up a -new cause of action, not thought o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries, Madras Vs. Union of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT201(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner in these six writ petitions wanted to bring stainless steel circles imported by it under Heading 73.15(1) of the First Schedule, hereinafter referred to as the Schedule, to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Act No. 51 of 1975). That has not been accepted by the authorities concerned and they have brought the stainless steel 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 duty CentralNo. description of (a) Standard Excisearticle (b) Preferent- Tariffial areas Item------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------73.15 Alloy steel and high carbonsteel in the forms mentionedin Heading 73.06/07 to 73.14 26-AA(1) Not elsewhere specified (a) 60%(2) Coils for rerolling, strips,sheets and plates ofstainless steel (a) 30...
Tag this Judgment!V. Chidambaram Vs. D. Venkatesan, Asst. Director of Inspection (intell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Mad)252; [1987]167ITR443(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. This application is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. No. 8843 of 1982. The writ petition was filed impleading not only respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, but also one SM. Swetharanyam as a respondent, who is the husband of the third respondent in this application. 2. The writ petition was filed to quash a notice issued by the first respondent dated October 18, 1982, and to restrain him from taking any steps thereof, pending decision of rights of parties in the partition suit O.S. No. 50 of 1982, Sub-Court, Devakottai. 3. The impugned notice was issued directing petitioner to furnish particulars in connection with the jewellery mentioned therein, and (i) to furnish a list of jewellery given for wealth-tax assessment; (ii) the reasons for the difference between the two; (iii) details for fresh acquisition and evidence for the same; and (iv) to identify the jewels given for wealth-tax purposes at the time of inspection on September 3, 1982 at Devakottai. The caption for t...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. V. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad146; (1987)IIMLJ204
Sathiadev, J.1. National-Insurance Co. Ltd., third respondent in MCOP No. 38 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, is the appellant, Petitioners I to 3 and respondents I and 2 before it are the respondents herein. Ranking of parties is, as before Tribunal.2. Petitioners claimed that they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.75000 for the death of one Vyasarao, who died in a scooter accident on 13-9-1978, on the Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. They stated as follows : On the fateful day when Vyasarao the husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3, was traveling on the pillion of the scooter TNB 5601, which was then being driven by the first respondent and belonging to the second respondent, it skidded, and as a result thereof, he was thrown off the pillion and he sustained injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. This accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who was th...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppaiyee Ammal Vs. Solammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ438
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a defendant's revision petition directed against an order rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of a promissory note against the defendant. The suit was posted for trial finally on 30.8,1979. The defendant did not appear on that date and consequently the suit was decreed ex parte on the same date.3. It was only on 2.1.1980, that is, a little more than four months after the date of the decree, that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed. The application was obviously belated and therefore an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay was also filed.4. The learned District Munsif, Kulitalai, took up for consideration first the application for condonation of delay. On that application the learned District Munsif held that the explanation given by the defendant was not satisfact...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: I(1988)ACC249
T. Sathiadev, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., third respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Coimbatore, is the appellant. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before it are the respondents herein. Ranking of parties is, as before Tribunal.2. Petitioners claimed that they are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the death of one Vyasarao, who died in a scooter accident on 13-9-1978, on the Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. They stated as follows: On the fateful day when Vyasrao, the husband of first petitioner and the father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, was travelling in the pillion of the scooter TNB 5601, which was then being driven by the first respondent and belonging to the second respondent, it skidded, and as a result thereof, he was thrown off the pillion and he sustained injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. This accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Mad)266; [1987]167ITR250(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras-34, dated May 17, 1983, in R.A. Nos. 12 and 13 (MDS) of 1983. Those two applications are reference applications filed by the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act and praying for referring certain questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment of the second respondent in the writ petitions. The Tribunal dismissed those applications holding that it is the Commissioner that has been given the power to ask for a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, that the reference applications in the instant cases have been signed by a senior authorised representative for the Commissioner and that there is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner had applied his mind for asking for a reference before the application...
Tag this Judgment!India Pistons Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC243; 1987(27)ELT651(Mad)
1. Admit. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It engaged inter alia in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts and accessories falling under Tariff Item No. 34A of the Central Excise Tariff. 3. In the annual stock taking conducted by the first respondent (Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras-II Division) in the petitioner company in the year 1981 certain alleged shortages and excesses were noticed. Consequent to this detection of shortages, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner company on 25-5-1983 calling upon them to shows cause as to why duty on shortages in Pistons, Rings, Gudgeon Pins totalling about Rs. 2,16,681.94 should not be demanded under Rule 223-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and further calling upon the petitioner as to why a penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner under Rules 223-A and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner filed a reply on 25-5-1983 stating inter alia that t...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Bank of India, Rep. by Asst. General Manager, Regd. Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ349
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner, the Central Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner bank, has come to this Court, stating, as follows : The fourth respondent requested for financial assistance for their working capital and long term financial requirements and the petitioner bank agreed to give such facilities and gave advances for the working capital and long term financial requirements since the year 1968. The entire fixed and movable assets of the fourth respondent consisting of land, building plant, machinery fixtures, stocks stores spares and other, movable assets have been charged or mortgaged to the petitioner bank to form security for the fourth respondent's indebtedness to the petitioner bank under various facilities. By such financial assistance from time to time, the total out standings due by the fourth respondents to the petitioner bank amounted to Rs. 1,24,52,319.83 on principal account and Rs. 95,76,466.42, towards interest from 1.1.1976 up ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy Perumal Vs. Vijayalakshmi Financial Trading Company and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ68
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Pondicherry, against the judgment of the trial Court dated 7th September, 1979, dismissing the suit.2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in the lower Court was as follows : The second defendant sold the suit house to him for Rs. 45,000/- under a sale deed dated 11.8.1976. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the second defendant produced an encumbrance certificate which showed that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ had been borrowed by the second defendant from one Kanagalingam on 4.9.1973. The encumbrance certificate did not disclose any other encumbrance. The plaintiff took possession of the house. While so, on 8.2.1978, the plaintiff found a sale notice affixed on the suit property, which proclaimed for sale the suit property in E.P. No. 314 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pondicherry. The above sale notice disclosed the second ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »