Chennai Court June 1987 Judgments
C. Chanthanamuthu Pillai Vs. K. Padmanabhan Nadaralias Peruvathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ365
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 52 of 1983 in O.S. No. 62 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 62 of 1980. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil the respondent obtained a decree for specific performance of contract of sale with costs. He filed E.P.No.52 of 1983 for realising the said costs. The petitioner resisted the said execution proceedings on the ground that as per the decree he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,700 from the respondent and the costs may be set off against the said amount. The trial Court rejected the said contention on the ground that it is open to the petitioner to realise that amount at any time by separate proceedings and therefore it is not a ground on which he can refuse to pay the amount claimed in this execution petition. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Chetankumar and Company and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC18; 1988(33)ELT354(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners imported pulses. There was an earlier Notification No. 129/76 totally exemption the pulses from duty under the Customs Act 52 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. By Notification No. 40/87 bearing date 4-2-1987, the earlier notification granting exemption was rescinded and duty under the Act to the tune of 25% ad valorem was imposed. According to the petitioners this notification was printed and published only on 17/18th February, 1987 and as such it came into effect only on that date. We can take it that the vessels through which the imports took place entered the territorial waters of this country on various dates anterior to 17/18th February, 1987. The bills of entry in respect of imports made by the petitioners were admittedly lodged after 17/18th February, 1987. The petitioners want total exemption of duty under the Act for the pulses imported by them on two-fold basis. One is, the Notification No. 40/87 became effective only on and from 17/18th F...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ914Mad
S. Mohan, J. 1. Sri Sanjay Mphan, learned counsel in all these writ petitions appearing for the petitioner-management-contends that the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are bad. According to the learned counsel what the management is required to deposit is only the admitted amount as per Section 7(4) of the Act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has not looked into the relevant provisions and directed the amount as awarded by the Controlling Authority to be deposited under the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act and, therefore, he prays that the question may be decided, so that there could be an authoritative ruling of the Court concerning the scope of the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act.2. Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen would urge that in so far as the amount as ordered by the Controlling Authority had not been paid, the appeals themselves wer...
Tag this Judgment!Chetankumar and Co. and ors. Vs. the Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC296(Madras)
Nainarsundaram, J.1. The petitioners imported pulses. There was an earlier Notification No. 129/76 totally exempting the pulses from duty under the Customs Act 52 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. By Notification No. 40/87 bearing dated 4.2.1987, the earlier Notification granting exemption was rescinded and duty under the Act to the tune of 25% ad valorem was imposed. According to the petitioners this Notification was printed and published only on 17/18th February, 1987 and as such it came into effect only on that date. We can take it that the vessels through which the imports took place entered the territorial waters of this Country on various dates anterior to 17/18th February, 1987. The bills of entry in respect of imports made by the petitioners were admittedly lodged after 17/18th February, 1987. The petitioners want total exemption of duty under the Act for the pulses imported by them on two-fold basis. One is, the Notification No. 40/87 became effective only on and ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Balu Vs. Periasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad114
ORDER1. The above revision by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order passed by the 11 Additional Subrodinate Judge, Salem in E.P. 67 of 1984 in O.S. 143 of 198 1, confirming the sale in respect of Itmes 2 and 3, on the ground that the sale of these items; amounted to excessive execution being in violation of 0. 21, R. 64, C.P.C.2. The first respondent filed O.S. 143 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,275 with future interest. The suit was decreed. The first respondent filed E.P. 67 of 1984 under O. 21, Rr. 43, 64, 66 and 68, C.P.C. in respect of three items of properties. Itmes I and 2 were immoveable properties, while Item 3 was the negative print of a Tamil film with sound track. The value of the first item was shown in the E.P. as Rs. 30,000, the second item as Rs. 30,0Q, and the third item as Rs. 10,000. The execution petition was f or a sum of Rs. 1,37,425. During the penden...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Naicker and ors. Vs. Kalaimani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ240
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S. No. 40 of 1979. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly as follows : The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 12 items of suit properties. Their case is that one Narayana Naicker had four sons, namely, Perumachi Naicker, Kodalan alias Muthu Naicker, Ramasami Naicker and Mottaiya Naicker and defendants 1 to 4 are the sons of Perumachi Naicker. The fifth defendant is the son of the first defendant. Kodalan alias Muthu Naicker had a son by name Muthu Pillai. Ramasami Naicker had three sons by name Chinnakolandai, Narayanasami and Manicka Naicker. The plaintiffs are the sons of Chinnakolandai. A partition was effected between the sons of Narayana Naicker about 50 years ago in which the suit properties fell to the share of Mottai Naicker. Mottai...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Rajam Vs. Ramaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad170
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by the first respondent-minor Rajam, represented by father and guardian Neelakandan, Proprietor, Anandan Bus Service, against the Award passed in C.P. No. 293 of 1979 on 291- 1981 along with C.P. No. 162 of 1979 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore, finding that Ramaswamy petitioner/first respondent herein is entitled to recover a compensation of Rs.9,000/-, The Tribunal observed that during the period of treatment, the injured would have suffered much pain and suffering and as such a compensation of Rs.3,000/- is just and adequate. It is also held that the injured due to mal-union of the bone has suffered permanent disability and as such a compensation of Rs.6,000/- for the same .was awarded. Thus, it was held that the first respondent herein was entitled to a cover a total compensation of Rs.9,000/-.2. The petitioner/first respondent herein (in C. P. No. 293 of 1979),. aged about 50 years is an agricult...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thangapalam Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ410Mad
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. This is appeal by the original petitioner against the order of the ld. Single Judge dismissing his petition in which he had challenged his non-selection as Personal Assistant (Administration) which is a promotional post from the category of Superintendents. 2. The petitioner who was originally appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Police Department on 15th June, 1957 was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Assistant) on 1st June, 1961. He was inducted to the Special Branch, C.I.D. as Special Branch Assistant with effect from 31st December 1970. When he was on other duty as Special Branch Assistant in the Special Branch, C.I.D., his name was considered by the State Promotion Board when a 'C'-list of Assistants fit for promotion as Superintendents was drawn. The name of the petitioner was included in the said 'C' list in 1974 and he was accordingly promoted as Superintendent in the same year by the order of the Inspector General of Police, dated 26th July, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkataramanan and Co., by Partner T.M. Thambusamy and ors. Vs. In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1987
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ79
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 754 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem are the appellants in this appeal.2. The respondent is a Nationalised Bank Which filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,352-32 due on a mortgage and for costs.The case of the respondent/plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is as follows: - The first appellant is a firm in which the other appellants were partners. The appellants wanted financial help for running their business and, therefore, they approached the respondent for a loan. The respondent agreed to lend under Open Cash Credit Hypothecation limit and the facility was sanctioned on 3-2-1971 to the extent of Rs. 20,000 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 35,000 on 24-4-1973 and further raised to Rs. 43,000 on 18-8-1973. The second appellant deposited with the respondent Bank on 11-2-1971 the title deeds of his property and created an equitable mortgage. The said deposit of title deeds was made w...
Tag this Judgment!N. Jayathilakan Vs. Additional Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)LC1172(Madras); 1987(31)ELT47(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 28th October 1981 in and by which he has confirmed an order of confiscation of cloves valued at Rs. 47,000 for violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), and also levy of personal penalty of Rs. 2500 under Section 112 of the Act. 2. Brief facts relating to this writ petition may now be noted. On 7th May 1973, the officers of the Central Excise department raided the premises bearing Nos. 104 and 126 South street, Madras 23, and seized 245 kgs. and 249 kgs. of cloves belonging to the petitioner on entertaining a reasonable belief that the said cloves have been illegally imported into India. For the show cause notice dated 7th August 1973 issued to the petitioner, a reply was sent on 18th October, 1973, stating that the cloves were purchased from one Kusal Ray who in turn purchased the same in the auction held by the Central Excise department at Nagapattinam under Custo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »