Chennai Court September 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.
Deluxe Roadlines Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ174
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The petitioner, original defendant in a suit for damages is a common carrier. It is a partnership firm whose Head Office is in Bangalore.2. Plaintiff No. 2 - The Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd., handed over certain goods to the defendant for being delivered at Hubli in the State of Karnataka. As the goods were never delivered, because, according to the defendant, a major portion of the goods which consisted of consignment of tea had been washed away due to heavy rains at the time when the lorry which was carrying the goods had met with an accident. Plaintiff No. 2 along with plaintiff No. 1, which is National Insurance Co. Ltd., filed a suit for damages amounting to Rs. 755 in the Court of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam. In the written statement one of the pleas raised by the defendant was that the Court at Uthagamandalam had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because, the parties have agreed to submit to the Bangalore jurisdiction as st...
Management of Bombay Ammonia (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Madras Vs. the Additi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ203Mad
ORDER1. The second respondent was the employee of the petitioner as Senior Stenographer. By order dated 10th May 1978 her services were terminated. The said order reads as follows :- 'FromBombay Ammonia (Madras) Private Ltd.35, Mount Road,Madras-600 002. ToMrs. P. Bosser.13/8-B Jermiah Road,Vepery,Madras-600 007.Ref :- PB/MR. This confirms the discussion the under-signed had with you yesterday where as it was clearly pointed out to you that your conduct and attitude in the office and also your contacts outside the office have been prejudicial to the Company's interest in that the Management have been led to the irresistible conclusion that you have been passing on confidential and trade information of the Company to persons outside the Company not entitled or authorised to know whereby such persons had taken advantage of such information and acted prejudicially to the company affecting its business and contracts. This also confirms the option given to you yesterday of finding yourself...
S. Padmanabhan Vs. Deputy Collector of Enforcement Directorate, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC67; 1987(28)ELT344(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. Appellant was proceeded against under Section 54(1)(aa) and (c) and 9(1)(b) and (d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by issuing for show cause notices dated 5.1.1977, and also proposing to confiscate Indian currencies of Rs. 1,500/- surrendered by him. He submitted his reply on 5.2.1977 denying the charges, and disowning the statements made by him on 1.6.1976 and 2.6.1976 by claiming that they were taken from him by coercion by the Enforcement Officer, and that he had not committed any contravention as charged, and which are listed in para 1 of the order of Deputy Director. 2. Respondent claimed that appellant during the period of 1974 to 1976 had received Rs. 25,000/- on ten occasions from a local person under order of one R. Muthuswamy of Colombo, and made payments under his instructions to various parties in India, and further, between the years 1966 and 1973, on 29 occasions, he had received Rs. 50,000/- from a local person by order or on behalf of the said...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC228; 1987(28)ELT258(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner manufactures paper and paper boards. In the course of such manufacture, certain items are being received as 'waste'. The petitioner addressed a communication dated 7.12.1979, to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem in the following terms :- 'Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd.SI/730/1130 7th December 1979The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise,Salem I.D.O. Salem 636 007 Dear Sir, Re : Sale of waste In the course of manufacture of paper, the following items are received as waster : 1. Causticizing lime sludge (50% dry) 2. Effluent sludge (40% dry) 3. Causticiaing hypo grits 4. Clinker ash 5. Fine ash 6. Chipper House dust. All these years we have been throwing away the above products as waste except in the case of causticizing lime sludge in which a small quantity was sold to Messrs. India Cements and on which duty was demanded. An appeal was also filed with Appellate Collector of Central Excise, who has since passed orders in this regard. It is, o...
Gomathi Vs. Kumaraguruparan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad259
ORDER1. This civil revision is preferred by the wife, against the orders of the subordinate Judge,Tirunelveli, passed in I.A. 87 of 1985 in H.M.O.P. 37 of 1980.2. The brief facts of the case ire as follows- The respondent herein, husband, filed H.M.O.P. 110 of 1977 for judicial separation against the wife, revision petitioner herein, and that application was allowed by the Court below on 24-3-1979. Against the said order, C.M.A. 37 of 1979 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, was preferred by the wife, which was dismissed on 23-10 1979 and a further second appeal in C.M.S.A. 27 of 1980 before this Court also ended in dismissal on 14-11-1984.3. In the meanwhile, the respondent husband filed H.M.O.P. 37 of 1980 before the trial Court on 4-3-1980 for divorce on the ground that there was no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to marriage for more than one year after the date of passing of the decree for judicial separation.4. The petitioner herein, wife, filed I.A....
The Sirumalai Kanakasabapathy Poohjolai Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad366
1. The petitioner is a successor in-interest of Kanakasabapathy and four others, who were awarded ryotwari pattas under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948)in respect of the lands in question situated in sirumalaiVillage, Dindigul taluk,Madurai Dist. Earlier, there was a notification by the Collector of Madurai under S. 1(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. That notification was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. 3000 of 1977 and that challenge was successful when this court allowed the -writ petition, counteriancing two grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. One was that once the lands have been treated as ryoti lands and ryotwari pattas have been issued, the petitioner is entitled to hold the lands as not forest lands and the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 could not be applied to such lands. The second was that no notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to ...
Murugesan Vs. C.P. Nataraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ291
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Tenant is the petitioner. Aggrieved against ah Order of the. Appellate Authority permitting amendment of petition filed for eviction tenant had filed this revision. Respondent v had claimed that he is the owner of two adjoining buildings bearing Nos. 60 and 61 in Alamelumangapuram Road, and that instead of typing the number as 60, and the rent payable thereon as Rs. 23, they having been typed as 61 and Rs 25, he had asked for amendment of the petition. He had also filed another petition for similar 'relief in R.C.O.P. No. 2675 of 1983 against that tenant in respect of the other property, and when both of them were being typed, this error had occasioned.2. This plea was opposed by tenant on the ground that, even in the counter-statement, the error committed by the landlord having been pointed out and no immediate step having been taken he cannot ask for amendment at a time when the petition was being heard for final hearing, and that if the amendment is allowed, it ...
Mahavir Metal Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT24(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in W.P. No. 11316 of 1981 runs as follows :- 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari-fied-Mandamus, calling for the records, ending with the order of the Appellate Collector No. C3/2209/81 dated 9.9.1981, quashing the same and direct the refund of duty of Rs. 2,69,404.20 paid in excess of the customs duty and additional duty at the rate of 8% and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.' 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 11317 of 1981 runs as follows :- 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ to certiorari-fied-Mandamus calling for the records ending with the order of the Appellate Collector C.3/2209/81 dated 9.9.1981 quashing the same and direct the refund of duty of Rs. 89,349 paid in excess of the custo...
Pandithurai and anr. Vs. Sivalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ80
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli granting a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares with reference to good and bad, soil and alloting one such share to the plaintiff and one such share to defendants 4 to 9. Defendants 1 to 3 were directed by the court below to render a true and proper account in respect of the income derived by them from the suit properties to the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of their respective shares to them. The Court below has relegated the quantum of mesne profits to be decided in separate proceedings under Order 20. Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed that the costs of the suit will come out of the estate.2. The suit was laid by Sivalingam, the plaintiff (first respondent in this appeal) for partition of the suit...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subbu (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC23; AIR1987Mad181; (1987)IMLJ285
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In respect of an accident that took place on 27-9-1982, the respondents-claimants filed a petition under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation for the death of one Rasiah Nadar alias Raja.2. The only point that is urged in this appeal is that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence to drive the vehicle and that therefore the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability to pay any compensation. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, by its order dt. 31-1-1985 in O. P. 17 of 1983, held that the driver had a driving licence, that it has not been shown that the vehicle in question is a medium goods vehicle and that the Insurance Company has also failed to establish that the driver had no valid licence for driving the vehicle which was involved in the accident.3. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the driver had a licence and that the tractor in question could not be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »