Chennai Court November 1987 Judgments
Vittalnathan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT19(Mad)
ORDERM.N. Chandurker, C.J.1. Even after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants at considerable length we are not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. In his order the learned Judge has held that the petitioners are bound to appear in pursuance of the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that they are not entitled to have the presence of a lawyer at the time when their statement is recorded. As we fully endorse the reasons given and the view taken by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petitions, we do not think it necessary deal in extenso with the arguments advanced before us. However, since the matter has been argued at considerable length we might briefly indicate the two contentions and the reasons for rejecting them. 2. The first contention was that a summons under Section 108 of the Act cannot be issued unless an enquiry as contemplated by Section 124 of the Act is co...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC29
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to return the two bales of fabrics covered by shipping bill No. 00859 dated 23.5.1984. The petitioner-company exports silk and cotton fabrics and majority' of its exports are through Calcutta and Madras Airports. It tendered two bales of fabrics on 23.5.1984 along with the relevant documents at the Aircargo Complex, Madras Airport, for being exported. Customs Officials inspected the contents of the bales and found that they do not tally with the declaration made by the petitioner on the shipping bill. On 25.5.1984 they drew samples from the two bales for investigation. On 1.6.1984, the petitioner corresponded for the release of the consignment claiming that the foreign buyer is pressing for immediate shipment and that they would cancel the order if the goods were loaded to them beyond 4.6.1984. On 5.6.1984, the petitioner was informed that the goods are with SIB unit and that the Assistant Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ452
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. These revisions arise out of the common order passed by the Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court, Madras) confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and also stopping further proceedings and consequently ordering eviction by granting three months time in all these cases.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revision-petitions are briefly as follows:-These revision-petitioners became tenants of different portions of the premises bearing door No. 49, Perumal Mudali Street, Kondithope, Madras, under one K. Bangaru Chettiar. The said K. Bangaru Chettiar died on 27-10-1981. Thereafter, Rajammal styling hereself as the widow of Bangaru Chettiar was collecting rents from the tenants. She died on 9-10-1984. Even during her lifetime, the respondent herein, namely, Lakshmi filed a suit informa pauperis for recovery of possession in O.P. No. 4288 of 1984 and during the pendency of the suit, Rajammal died on 9-10-1984. There...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M. Duraiappa Nadar Vs. P. Thirupurasundariammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ89
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of the landlady who is now paying rent at Rs. 150 per month. The petition for eviction of the tenant was filed by I he landlady on two grounds. One ground was that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause as contemplated by Section 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease, and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The other ground was that the building was bona fide required by the landlady for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to he demolished as contemplated under Section 14(1)(b). On evidence, the Rent Controller held on both the grounds in favour of the landlady. He held that the building was not in a sound condition and that it needed to be demolished. He further held that the landlady had established beyond doubt that s...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan Vs. Kannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ136
Srinivasan, J.1. The properties involved in both the suits, out of which these appeals arise, belonged originally to one Vazhithunai Mudaliar. Though there was a controversy in the Court below whether the properties belonged to him absolutely as his self acquired properties or his joint family properties, that controversy is not present in this Court. It is now admitted on all hands that the properties belonged absolutely to Vazhithunai Mudaliar. He died on 18.12.1948 leaving a will dated 15.3.1944 marked as Ex.B.43. He had a wife by name Kanniammal, four daughters, namely, Nagarathinammal, Kanakavalli Ammal, Indirani Ammal and Kanakammal and a son by name kanniappa. Kanniappa died on 3.4.1963 leaving a widow by name Muniammal. Nagarathinammal had two sons, Madhavan and Vasudevan. The appellant in both the appeals is the said Madhavan. It is not necessary to refer to the other members of the family for the purpose of these two appeals.2. Kanniammal, the wife of Vazhithunai Mudaliar, fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyavu Alias Palanivel Gounder and ors. Vs. Sengoda Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ97
Ratnam, J.1. In this second appeal at the instance of Plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 1901 of 1970, District Munsif's Court, Namakkal, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the lower appellate court was right in its conclusion that by reason of the adjudication in O.S. No. 313 of 1.943, the appellants would be precluded from agitating their claim made in the suit.2. The suit was for a declaration that the appellants and respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to the suit property of an extent of 19 acres and 1.3 cents in S. No. 23/2 in Molapalayam village and for a permanent injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same. In the written statement filed by respondents 1 to 3, they pleaded that as a result of the prior proceedings culminating in S.A. No. 243 of 1947, the appellants would be precluded by the principle of resjudicata from agitating the question of title as well as injunction. On the question of...
Tag this Judgment!H. Rahim Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC1
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention dated 10-11-1986 passed against the petitioner and for setting him at liberty.2. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the respondent-the State of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods.3. The facts of the case leading to the passing of the impugned order of detention have been set out in detail in the grounds of detention and we do not think it necessary to recapitulate the same.4. Though several grounds are taken in the affidavit in support of this writ petition challenging the validity of the order of detention, Mr. S.A. Abdul Ghani, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latheef Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC5
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against the petitioner on 9-5-1986 and for setting the petitioner at liberty.2. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the 1st respondent-State of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred on it by and under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling gold.3. On the night of 26/27-9-1985 at about 4-30 a.m. the petitioner arrived at the Airport at Madras from Abudhabi by Air India flight A.I. 906. He produced all the packages including one 'Long March' suit case for Custom's examination and orally declared that the total value of the goods was Rs. 2,550. His declaration was accepted and duty was levied accordingly. At the exit gate, the petitioner was intercepted by the intelli...
Tag this Judgment!Sivarama Chettiar and ors. Vs. Krishna Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ183
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. C.M.P. No. 16797 of 1987 is filed by the respondents in A.S. No. 650 of 1986 of this Court, to vacate the stay granted in C.M.P. No. 9242 of 1986 in A.S. No 650 of 1986. C.M.P. No. 16798 of 1987 is for stay of execution of the decree in Q.S. No. 110 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, pending disposal of the said appeal.2. In C.M.P. No. 16797 of 1987, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that this court passed a conditional order on 10.12.1986 making the interim stay already granted absolute on condition of the appellants, who are the respondents herein, paying a sum of Rs. 23,000/-to the credit of O.S. No. 88 of 1984, on the file of the Sub Court, Villupuram, within eight weeks from the date of the order and furnishing security to the tune of Rs. 23,000 within ten weeks from the date of the order and in default in complying with any one of the said directions the stay granted shall stand automatically vacated. Though...
Tag this Judgment!Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ280
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »