Chennai Court July 1989 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.
Assistant Collector of Customs (imports) Vs. Sundaram Textiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC392; 1989(25)LC470(Madras); 1989(44)ELT464(Mad)
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. Since a common question, as to when customs duty became leviable for the two consignments of goods imported into India, arises in these writ appeals, they are disposed of together under a common judgment. 2. Appellants in these writ appeals are the respondents in W.P. 298 of 1979 and W.P. 459 of 1979 (and will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents). The respondent in W.A. 538 of 1982 (who will hereinafter be referred to as the first petitioner) is the petitioner in W.P. 298 of 1979, and the respondent in W.A. 539 of 1982 is the petitioner in W.P. 459 of 1979 (and will hereinafter be referred to as the second petitioner). 3. Each of the petitioners filed a writ petition, more or less on similar averments, each seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order of the first respondent assessing their goods for customs duty to a particular sum. Both the petitioners had imported viscose staple fibre blended yarn, the first petitioner, 142 ...
Arulandam and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC264; 1991ACJ977
T.S. Arunachalam, J.1. The first petitioner was the conductor and the second petitioner was the driver of Thillai Natarajan' bus, which was plying between Chidambaram and Kattumannarkoil. They were tried in C.C. No. 226 of 1982, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, for an offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 5.2.1982 at or about 10.15 p.m. opposite to Lalpettai High School, while Natarajan (the deceased) was alighting from the front exit gate of the bus, the 1 st petitioner gave the whistle for starting of the bus, on which the 2nd petitioner took off the bus from the bus-stop, during the course of which the deceased, who was halfway in the process of getting down from the bus, fell underneath, resulting in the bus running over him, leading to his death. The trial court found the petitioners guilty as charged and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- eac...
Sathyakumar Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Settlement Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ295
Mohan, Officiating C.J.1. This is rather an unfortunate case in which for no fault of the writ petitioner, the third respondent herein, he has been driven from pillar to post. All that the third respondent wanted was a notice before the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 - Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969 were finalised.2. The short facts of the case are as unden:-As early as in 1840 one Padamittah Ookaran, the predecessor-in-title of the appellant came into possession of some of the lands connected with the lands in the Gudalur Janmam. There were certain court proceedings and ultimately in O.S. No. 113 of 1863 on the file of the principal SunderAmin of Calicut, the objection relating to the attachment of a portion of the estate was upheld, and Venkitasubha Iyer the successor-in-interest of Ookaran executed a deed of conveyance in April, 1871 in respect of 3/4th of his share of the property to one C.Rangacharyalu. Subsequ...
D.A. Dubier Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ365
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The allottee of a residential building, requisitioned under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), has filed the present appeal, aggrieved with the order of the learned Judge dismissing in limine his writ petition to quash the order of the Accommodation Controller, releasing the building to the landlady for her own occupation.2. The appellant filed W.P. No.3899 of 1983 on the following averments: The building bearing Door No. 195, Purasawakkam High Road, Kilpauk, Madras - 10 was allotted to him on 27-6-1969 for his residential purpose and he has been residing therein ever since, presently paying Rs.250 as monthly rent In October 1982, he was promoted from the post of Reserve Inspector of Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Thanjavur East for one day only. He took charge on 11-10-1982 and handed over charge on the same day and proceeded to Mount Abu, Rajastha...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Salam Vs. Lakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad108
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle involved in the accident and against the driver of which vehicle the culpability of being rash and negligent has been found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, has got to be allowed on a short and at the same time a very potent legal point taken by Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.2. There was an accident on 11-5-1980. In that accident, two lorries were involved. One lorry bore the Registration No. MED 4639. Itwas owned by one N. Ramasami, It was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. It was driven at the time of the accident by one S. Ramasami, who was made as the first respondent before the Tribunal and who is the third respondent herein. The other lorry involved in the accident bore the registration number KPE 9368. The finding of the Tribunal was that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lor...
Raj Leathers Vs. the Secretary to Govt. Home Ministry, N. Delhi and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad320
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to prohibit the respondents from continuing with the search and investigation with regard to the materials imported under the Import Licence No. K/0441852/XX/100/ M/86 D.1.4, dt. 30-7-1986.2. It seems that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the manufacture and export of leather, having its administrative office at Madras and Works at Ambur, North Arcot District. In 1986-87 a licence was granted to the petitioner under the Advance Licence Scheme for their requirement oi chemical imputs under Appendix 119 of the Import and Export Policy. When the consignments started arriving, it seems that certain proceedings were taken by the Customs Department and the petitioner has come up to this Court in W.P. No. 4433 of 1988 and obtained interim orders from this Court restraining the Department from proceeding with the investigation in the matter and also directing them to deliver back to the petitioner the goods and documents seized. It is alleged that th...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ390
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the insurance company, with which the vehicle involved in the accident had has been insured and against the driver of which vehicle the culpability of being rash and negligent has been found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, has got to be allowed on one short and at the same time a very pertinent legal point taken by Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. 2. There was an accident on May 11, 1980. In that accident, two lorries were involved. One lorry bore the registration number MED 4639. It was owned by one N. Ramasami. It was insured with the appellate-insurance company. It was driven at the time of the accident by one S. Ramasami, who was made the first- respondent before the Tribunal and who is the third respondent herein. The other lorry involved in the accident bore the registration number KPE 9368. The finding of the Tribunal was that it was only on account of the rash and ...
K. Govindaraj Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC395; 1990(45)ELT220(Mad)
ORDER1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the reward amount of Rs. 4,62,700/- being the 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. 2. The following narration of facts would show the funny attitude of the petitioners and the wrong interpretation given by them to the notification issued by the Government. When the petitioners went for fishing during May 1986 they saw some bundles floating in the sea and two persons struggling for help. It seems that they salvaged the above bundles and also rescued the said two persons and the two persons informed that they were transporting contraband goods to Indian shores from Sri Lanka. The petitioners salvaged the contraband goods and brought them to Nagapattinam and handed over the same, to the Customs Officials. There were sixteen bundles containing VCRs and Zip fasteners. 3. In the statement before the authorities the petitioners deposed...
Union of India Vs. Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC209; 1990(50)ELT29(Mad); [1992]196ITR318(Mad)
S. Ramalingam, J.1. These writ appeals are against the common order made in W. P. Nos. 6048, 6049 and 6050 of 1984. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The respondent in the writ appeals, who is the petitioner in the writ petitions and who, for the sake of uniformity, will hereinafter be referred as to the petitioners manufactures cigarettes on which excise duty is payable. By an exemption Notification No. 30/79-Central Excise, dated 1-3-1979, made under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted cigarettes falling under a particular description from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, as is in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) of the Notification. The petitioner had the benefit of this exemption Notification and was clearing the manufactured cigarettes on payment of the concessional excise duty. 3. However, by a Notification No. 284/82-C. E., dated 30-11-1982, hereinafter referred to as the withdrawa...
Sivakumar Transports Vs. Mani Alias Palaniswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC146; 1990ACJ836
V. Ratnam, J. 1. This is an appeal at the instance of the owner of a bus against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 110 of 1980. On 2.4.1980 at about 4.15 p.m., the first respondent herein was waiting at the Veerapandi bus-stop and the bus plying on route 32E belonging to the appellant came there, but stopped at a distance of about 40 feet from the bus-stop. Many persons desiring to catch that bus ran towards the same and the first respondent also attempted to get into that bus through the exit in the front portion of the bus. When he had placed one foot on the footboard, the driver started driving the bus, as a result of which the first respondent fell down and sustained some injuries. According to the first respondent, the accident took place only on account of the careless and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The injuries sustained by the respondent necessitated his taking treatment for about three months between 2.4....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »