Chennai Court October 1990 Judgments
Southern Engg. Industries Vs. Supdt. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT373(Mad)
ORDERThis Writ Appeals coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam Court in W.P. Nos. 6838/82, 7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82, 7509/82, 7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively and all other papers material to these cases and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan for M/s. R. Mohanasundaram and T. Muthuraman, Advocate for the Appellant in each of the Writ Appeals and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the Writ Appeals, the Court made the following Order :- On the learned Single Judge holding that the appellants are having alternative remedies under the Central Excise and Salt Act and more particularly after the constitution of the Tribunal which had come into existence since 11-10-1982, these Writ Appeals are preferred. 2. The writ petitions were filed in 1982 after the adjudicating authority i.e. th...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT555(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 21-7-1989, 8-10-1990 and 11-10-1990 and made herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid on the file of the respondents in each petition comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the Writs made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate-General for Mr. K. P. H. Thulasiraman, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 15457 to 15459/90 and 15970 to 15974/90 and of Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 9515/89 and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 15457 to 15459/90 and 15970 to 15974/90 and for the 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 9515 of 1989 the Court made the following order :- 2. All these writ petitions have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the issue of writ of c...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Assist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas168(Mad); (1991)IMLJ37
Raju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated May 14, 1977, and that of the second respondent Tribunal dated January 7, 1982. 2. The order of the first respondent is one made under the provisions of section 11 read with sections 5C and 40A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereunder the first respondent assessed the writ petitioner who is the official liquidator of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. to a tax of Rs. 47,112.50 for each Fasli commencing from Fasli 1385, in respect of urban lands measuring about 276.0662 sq. ft. and 80,170 sq. ft. in T. S. Nos. 34 and 3756/1 of block 74 of Sembiam and Mylapore villages, which stand registered in the name of the said Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd., which is at present under liquidation. Aggrieved against the said order of assessment, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Liquidator, Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)37MLJ1
ORDERRaju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.5.1977 and that of the second respondent-Tribunal dated 7.1.1982.2. The order of the first respondent is one made under the provisions of Section 11 read with Section 5-C and 40-A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), where-under the first respondent assessed the writ petitioner, who is the Official Liquidator of Gannon M/s. Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. to a tax of Rs. 47,112.50 for each fasli commencing from fasli 1385, in respect of Urban Lands measuring about 276.0662 sq. feet and 80,170 sq. feet in T.S. Nos.34 and 3756/1 of Block 74 of Sembium and Mylapore villages, which stand registered in the name of the said M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd., which is at present under liquidation. Aggrieved against the said order of assessment, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal be...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. Pechimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)31MLJ1
Srinivasan, J.1. The main question of law that is argued by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiffs have to fail as they have not prayed, for declaration of title or recovery of possession as, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, it is admitted in the plaint that the defendant had already encroached on the suit property.2. The prayer in the plaint was for grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and fore mandatory injunction for removal of the construction already made by the defendant and marked as A.B. in the plan attached id the plaint. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is admitted that the defendant had already trespassed on the suit property. The following sentence is relied upon by the learned Counsel:6. The space claimed by the defendant is marked as A.C. on the south and CD. on the west. In spite of all the above fact the defendant has starte...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Mohamed Yousuf Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Addl. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1675
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed by the first respondent on 27-4-1989 against him and setting him at liberty. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The facts which led to the passing of the order has been elaborately dealt with in the grounds of detention which has been served on the detenu and hence we are of the view that there is no need to reiterate the same once again in this order, especially in view of the plea taken in this writ petition. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. K. A. Jabbar raised various contentions, he confined his arguments mainly to one ground, na...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Khaja Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR627(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in E.O.C.C. No. 402 of 1987, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II), Madras, He is being prosecuted at the instance of the respondent who is the Sixth Income-tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras-6, for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 276(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this petition filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of the process of court, Mr. Jamal Mohammed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the complaint does not allege that the petitioner, while he delivered the returns for assessment, either knew or believed to be false, or did not believe to be true, that the contents therein provided scope for evasion of tax. Similarly, as far as the offence under section 276C is concerned, learned counsel contended that mere n...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and anr. Vs. M.D. Vijay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ260Mad; (1991)IIMLJ496
Somasundaram. J.1. The respondent 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 1601 of 1981 are the appellants in W.A. No. 917/87. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent in W.P. No. 1001 of 1981 are the respondents in W.A. 917/87. The respondent in W.P. No. 7853 of 1982 is the appellant in W.A. No. 918/87. The petitioners in W.P. No. 7853 of 1982 are the respondents in W.A. No. 918/87. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the writ petitions. 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 1001/81 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 26th January 1981 issued by the second respondent and for directing the petitioner's reinstatement. In W.P. No. 7853/83 the petitioners challenge the Regulation Nos. 21 and 31-G of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations, 1972 and pray for issue of a writ of declaration declaring the said regulations as illegal and unconstitutional in so far as the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishindas Zarda Factory Vs. the Vazir S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)194MLJ1
Venkataswami, J.1. These two appeals preferred under Section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are directed against a common order of Ramanujam, J., in A.A.O. Nos. 582 and 583 of 1976, dated 11.9.1980.2. The related facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under:The respondent herein is the registered proprietor of two trade marks bearing Nos.9951 and 170427, having registered them for 'manufactured tobacco' occurring in Clause 34 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The abovesaid two trade marks were obtained on 23.12.1942 and 1.8.1959 respectively. The first trade mark, namely, the Trade Mark bearing No. 9951 consisted of a label with a device of Charminar and a word 'Charminar' along with a monogram and trading style of the respondent, while the second trade mark, namely, 170427 consisted of a label with tw...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramamurthy Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ497
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant in these two appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 295 of 1978 and the first defendant in O.S. No.3 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppattur, North Arcot District. The respondent in these two appeals is the defendant in O.S. No.295 of 1978 and the plaintiff in O.S. No.3 of 1980.2. The appellant herein filed the suit O.S. No.295 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppattur for directing the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 to be ordered to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The case of the appellant in the said suit is as follows:The respondent herein executed the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. All the formalities required for the registration of the document have been strictly complied with and the sale deed dated 2.11.1977 was presented for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The appellant called upon the respondent to register the document by me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »