Chennai Court October 1988 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.
Tata Oil Mills Company Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: 1991LC645(Madras); 1990(47)ELT259(Mad)
1. The Petitioner is a manufacturer of Vanaspathy and other edible oils. One of the goods imported by the Petitioner was Palmolein. On the import of Palmolein consignments additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was levied and collected. The Petitioner after paying the amount under protest filed refund applications. The Assistant Collector by his order 150/64-C.E., dated 24-8-1978 held that only palm oil is exempted and not Palmolein and, therefore, refund cannot be granted. This order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed on appeal by the appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The Petitioner's revision petitions to the Government were not successful and they were rejected by a common order dated 1-5-1981. W.P. No. 798 of 1982 was filed for quashing the order of the Government dated 1-5-1981 while W.P. No. 799 of 1982 has been filed for a declaration that the explanation to Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 is unconstitutional. 2. Learned Counsel f...
K. Chidambaram Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ106Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ, quashing the order of the third respondent dated 11th September 1978, dismissing the petitioner from service and orders of respondents 2 and 1 dated 19th July 1979 and 1st December 1982 respectively, confirming the said order of the third respondent and pass such further or other order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner entered the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service as Sub Inspector of Police in 1976. A charge memo was served on him, cataloguing eight charges and a departmental enquiry was held. On the basis of the report of the Enquiring Officer, the third respondent by his memo dated 4th July 1978 informed the petitioner that charges 1 to 6 and 8 were proved and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted on him. The petitioner was granted time and it was ...
R. Gandhi and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ493
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This is a public interest litigation instituted by the two Secretaries of the Indian Association of Lawyers (Tamil Nadu Chapter) and two students of the B.L.Class, who are interested in the welfare of the community and participants in the Free Legal Aid and Advice Centre seeking redress for the trials and tribulations undergone by the minority Sikh community of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu and a few others in the wake of assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984.2. The brief facts set out in the affidavit in support of this petition are these: As an aftermath of the unfortunate and dastardly assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi there were unfortunate incidents in the country affecting the Sikh community in particular and a series of incidents took place at Coimbatore. Miss. Geetha Ramaseshan, an Advocate of this Bar and one of the Joint Secretaries of the Indian Association of Lawyers (Tamil Nadu Chapter) visited Coimbatore on the 15th and 16th of Novem...
Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms) Vs. J. Anthony Gosta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ235
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli, is directed against the judgment of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 12 of 1980, in and by which the Land Tribunal held differing from the Authorised Officer that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reform's (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961 in respect of an extent of 12,500 standard acres. In the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 against the respondent, he was allowed to hold an extent of 42,630 standard acres inclusive of the lands in respect of which exemption was granted under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. The respondent was also directed to file a return in Form 2 under Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, but he did not do so, the details of his holdings were called for and collected with the help of the ...
A.Shanmugam and ors. Vs. T.R. Kannappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ538
Srinivasan, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is a concluded contract for sale in favour of the plaintiff with reference to the suit properties. 2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 26-3-1975 on the basis of the following averments:- Respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit were admittedly the owners of the suit properties. The first defendant for himself and on behalf of the second defendant agreed to sell the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs. 70,000 and executed an agreement on 26-3-1975. As per the agreement, he received a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of advance. Itwas agreed that another agreement was to be executed by defendants 1 and 2 for the same consideration of Rs. 70,000. The first defendant agreed to bring the second defendant and that both would execute the agreement before 30-4-1975. It was agreed that a sum...
R. Thangaperumal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reputed by Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ239
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner is a Headmaster of the Government High School at Illayaresanandal, Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli District. According to the entry in the S.S.L.C. book, his date of birth was 6.9.1929. The petitioner's case was that the correct date of birth is 22.10.1930. He preferred a suit in O.S. No. 187 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli for a declaration that the correct date of birth is 22.10.1930 and a consequential mandatory injunction to give effect to the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 22.10.1930. Though the learned District Munsif, decreed the suit declaring the date of birth as 22.10.1930, regarding the mandatory injunction, the learned District Munsif refused to grant the relief. The petitioner sent a letter on 21.12.1987 to the second respondent to alter his date of birth to 22.10.1930 from 6.9.1929 as per the judgment in O.S.189 of 1987, dated 13.8.1987. On 16.2.1988, the respondent replied as follows:.In ...
Revathi-c.P. Equipments Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. Sangeetha Tubewell Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad302
1. These second appeals arise out of a common judgment in A.S. Nos. 346 and 381 of 1983, on the file of the First Additional Judge. City Civil Court, Madras, dt. 16-I1-1983 which in turn arose out of a judgment and decree in O.S. No. 6589 of 1982, on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The 1st defendant in the said suit is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1089 of 1984 and the plaintff in the said suit is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1510 of 1984. The second respondent in both the second appeals was the second defendant in the suit. (The parties will be referred to hereafter as plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 for the sake of convenience).3. The plaintiff succeeded in the trial Court by getting a decree as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the 1st defendant as well as the second defendant preferred two appeals, and the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the 1st defendant in part, dismissed the appeal fi...
United Linear Agencies of India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT145(Mad)
ORDERMohan, J.1. The petitioner before us filed W.P. No. 6562 of 1981, challenging the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, Customs House, Madras-1, made in IM. 426/79 MCD/L/C) dated 25-7-1981. In and by that order the second respondent imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,14,447.72 on the petitioner for alleged short-landing of 1,499 bags of 'Soy Fortified Bulgur Wheat'. He questioned the levy on various grounds. Inter alia it was urged that the penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act. 1962, was leviable only on dutiable goods. Insofar as the consignment was exempt from duty no penalty could be levied thereon for short-landing. Further the cargo in question would either fall under T.I. No. 10 or 10(1) and not Item No. 21.01.07. Originally the petitioner before us obtained injunction from the collection of penalty. That came to be vacated by the order of my learned Brother Ratnam, J., on 24th June, 1987 in the following terms :- 'No case is made out for continuing the interim injunctio...
S.N. Mohideen Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC226; 1989(39)ELT376(Mad)
1. The petitioner is the same in all the Writ Petitions which are disposed of by this common order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a dealer of hand-made biris and he is also a manufacturer in hand-made biris. - As a dealer, he used to purchase hand-made biris manufactured by others, affix his brand name, namely 'MADRAS MUNIM BEEDIES' and sell the same. He states that on all the biris, namely on the biris purchased from the other manufacturers, the petitioner used to affix the brand label, namely 'MADRAS MUNIM BEEDIES'. The petitioner claims that after the stage of manufacture was over and after the biris were made fit for consumption by the public without any further process at all, the petitioner used to affix the brand label, namely 'MADRAS MUNIM BEEDIES'. 3. The First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in tariff in Item 4 II 3 reads as follows :- '(i) Biris is the manufacture of which any process has been conducted with the aid of machine operated with o...
E.A. Swamy Vs. the Land Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ246
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 43 of 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellant is the owner of the lands in respect of which proceedings under the Act got initiated and they culminated in the publication of the final statement under Section 12 of the Act on 30.7.1980. As against the final statement, the appellant preferred a revision to the first respondent under Section 82 of the Act. The final statement was served on the appellant on 29.8.1980. The revision to the first respondent was preferred on 16.12.1980. As per Rule 62(i) along with the proviso of the rules framed under the Act, the time limit for preferring a revision under Section 82 of the Act would be sixty days from the date of service of the final statement, namely, 29.8.1980 and the first respondent would have the power to condone the delay of thirty days, if sufficient cause therefor is made out. The admitted position is the preferr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »