Chennai Court April 1987 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.
Sugesan and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC21; 1988(36)ELT457(Mad)
1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents and quash the order dated nil and made in No. 2/155/84CHA are despatched on 8.1.1986 by which the customs house agent's licence No. R64 issued in favour of the petitioner was revoked and the security deposit of Rs. 5000/- which had been furnished by the petitioner was forfeited and for passing such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the businesses of customs house clearing agent since 1921. On the ground that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct which in the opinion of the respondent-Collector of Customs rendered it unfit to transact any business in the customs station, the respondent purporting to exercise his powers under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), revoked the licence. The misconduct attribu...
Pappammal and ors. Vs. Swamikannu Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ306
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellants; before me are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an earlier suit O.S. No. 92 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for setting aside the order dated 10.4.1981 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration Department), Madras, and to uphold his right of hereditary trusteeship with reference to Sri. Gurumani Vinayagar and Kannanur Mariamman temple in Kodikalkuppam Village, Cuddalore O.T. In that suit, the plaintiff claimed that the temple was founded by his ancestors and the members of his family were holding the hereditary office of Karnam of the village and the office of the hereditary trusteeship of the temple. It was alleged by him that his family had endowed properties for the maintenance of the temple.It was also alleged that the trusteeship of the temple or the management thereof was never in the hands of anyone outside his family. When defendants 1 and...
Nataraja Naidu Vs. Ramadoss Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ389
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether a third party purchaser from a co-owner in respect of a small separate item of property can get his share allotted in a suit filed by the non-alienating co-owner for declaration and injunction in respect of the whole property impeaching the sale in favour of the purchaser. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:2. The appellant Nataraja Naidu and the second respondent Nallayya Naidu are brothers being the sons of one Ethirajammal. The suit property, a vacant site, was purchased in the name of Ethirajammal by means of a sale deed dated 26.3.1960 marked as Ex. A-1 for Rs. 50. The said Ethirajammal died in January 1977. The case of the appellant is that the property was purchased by him benami for him in the name of Ethirajammal and that he had been in possession of the property and had also prescribed title to the same by continuous possession and enjoyment for well over the st...
Govindan and ors. Vs. Cholan Roadways Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC125
Swamikkannu, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Monday the 23rd day of March 1987 and on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Rajagopalan, Advocate for the Appellants and of Mr. Ravi Kumar for M/s. King and Partridge, Advocates for the 1st respondent, and of Mr. V. Ragupathi, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following order:2. The main point that is argued in this appeal is that the deceased would have lived upto sixty years of age and given half the income for the maintenance of his family members and this has been abruptly cut short so far as the maintenance amounts for the other members of the family maintained by the deceased is concerned, as a result of the occurrence in this case, viz. the death of the deceased due to the accident. This Court has comprehensively gone into the evidence regarding the occurrence and it is needless to say tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›