Chennai Court December 1990 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.
Radiant Bearing Co. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1994LC159(Madras); 1992(58)ELT22(Mad)
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is for a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. After going through the orders of the Authorities below including the Tribunal and after hearing the Counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that arising out of the order of the Tribunal, the following question of law does arise : 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goods seized are 'contraband goods to the knowledge of the appellants' merely on the basis of misdeclaration of the value of the consignment when the goods were transported within India from Madras to Calcutta, particularly, when the Tribunal itself has noticed the fact that the seized goods are not notified goods or banned items ?' 2. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the above question o...
Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT539a(Mad)
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is for a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law raised before it for the decision of this Court. Earlier an application filed under Section 35C(7) of the Act for referring the questions of law was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence the present application. 2. After hearing the learned counsel Mr. V. Ramachandran for the applicant and Mr. Jayachandran for the Revenue, we are satisfied for the following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law for decision of this Court : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and in holding that a formal request for set off is necessary within the time prescribed under Rule 11 or Section 11B of the Act and that the applican...
N. Janakiraman Vs. the Director of State Lotteries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)210MLJ1
ORDERRatanam, J.1. The summary manner in which the court below had proceeded to reject S.R. No. 1129 dated 13.8.1990 in O.S. No. 209 of 1982 is not only incorrect but also irregular. By reason of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1575 of 1988, the first defendant in the suit had to be set exparte and in that sense, there is no lis between the petitioner and the first defendant. Under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 and Order 15, Rule 2, C.P.C., in a case where there are more defendants than one and there is no issue of fact or law arising between the plaintiff and one of such defendants, as in this case, when the first defendant had been set ex parte, it would be a matter for the court to consider whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could exercise its powers Under Order 15, Rule 2, C.P.C. and pass a decree ex pane against such defendant immediately. Unfortunately, the Court below has not borne in mind the scope of the aforesaid provisions and has procee...
Estate of Late S.V. Rajammal (by Accountable Person S.V. Venkatasubbu) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: [1992]197ITR55(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case references under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the accountable person and the Controller of Estate Duty, Tamil Nadu, respectively, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : Tax Case No. 270 of 1980 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that one-eighth share in the mill estates is liable to be included in the dutiable estate of the deceased ?' Tax Case No. 271 of 1980 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased had only a right of control and management over the Indo-Commercial Syndicate Mills, Pollachi, for her lifetime and, therefore, only a portion of the value of the mill properties which are attributable to the deceased's interest passed on the death of the deceased 2. Whether, on the facts and ...
B.N.K. Engine Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT19(Mad)
ORDER1. All these write petition were filed at the stage when show cause notices were issued to the petitioner based on Trade on Notice 197/88, dated 7-10-1988 which stated that if the inputs are supplied by the principal manufacturer for the manufacture of goods on job work basis, then the same should be treated as goods manufactured by the supplier of raw-materials (i.e. the principal manufacturer) and duty liability to be decided accordingly.2. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the validity of the above Trade Notice and had upheld the decision of the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Cochin v. Kerala State Electricity Board 1990 (47) ELT A161 wherein it has been held that the supplier of raw material will not becomes the manufacturer by the mere fact that the raw materials were being supplied by him and the same were to be utilised in the manufacture of articles to the ...
C. Hamsa Koya Vs. Sakthi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas74(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the bailiff had resubmitted the warrant with an endorsement that there is not such concern as Sakthi Automobiles P. Ltd. in the address given. The petitioner obtained a decree on April 23, 1981, in O.S. No. 8 of 1980, Sub-Court, Kavarathi, Laccadives Island. The execution petition was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras as the company address was given as No. 67, Village Road, Nungambakkam, Madras. The amount sought to be recovered in the execution petition is Rs. 6,872.75. The relief is prayed for under Order 21, rule 41, Civil Procedure Code, to orally examine the director of the company for means of satisfying the decree and also to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the assets of the company. As the notice in the execution petition could not be served because of the endorsement made by the baili...
M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: 1993LC534(Madras); 1991(55)ELT169(Mad)
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 409 of 1985 was filed by the appellant herein against show cause notice dated 25-7-1984 and the subsequent communication dated 27-7-1984. A learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition after dealing with the submissions on merits and noticing that the Department was prepared to withdraw paragraphs 2 and 3 of its letter dated 27-7-1984 subject to certain conditions. The learned single Judge did not find any reason to interfere with the show cause notice or the communication dated 27-7-1984. The learned single Judge, however, while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dated 2-1-1988 dealt with the question of payment of interest and observed as follows. '2. Yet another aspect is regarding payment of interest on amount which may become due and payable by petitioner, on the matter being finally decided. This court considers that, as and when the duty becomes payable, it must be paid. More often than not, the business community resorts t...
Kancheepuram Murugan Silk Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ178
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. It is directed against an order of injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in I.A. No. 1406 of 1990 in O.S. No. 309 of 1990. The order is to the effect that the appellant herein shall hold election to the Board of management of the Society only with the list of Members of the Society prepared on 20.10.1990 and that no member whose name is not found in the said list is entitled to participate in the election.2. It is necessary to set out a few facts prior to the filing of the present suit in order to show that the present suit is an abuse of process of Court.3. The appellant was appointed as Special Officer of the Society on 24.4.1989 under Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The State Government passed an Ordinance, which was Ordinance 4 of 1989 entitled as Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (Appointment of Speci...
M.V. Arunachalam Vs. T. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2036
ORDER1. The petitioner is accused 1, who had been described as 'M. V. Arunachalam, Chairman, Chamudeswari Baugh, 1, Bishop's Gardens, Opp : Greenways Road, Madras-25' in the complaint, taken on file as C.C. No. 2213 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.2. Accused 2 is one J. Jayalakshmi, Proprietrix, Gupta Traders, 325, New Dharapuram Road, Palani.3. On 25-7-1986, one P. V. Susil Kumar, B.Sc., (Agri), the Agricultural Officer (Plant Protection) in charge; took the sample of Endosulphan 35% EC 250 ml. container from the business premises of accused 2 as per the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No. 46 of 1968 - for short 'the Act'). One such sample so taken was sent to the Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Pesticide Testing Laboratory), Madurai. After analysis, the sample wad declared as 'misbranded.'4. After issuing show-cause notices to the persons concerned and not having been satisfied with the replies elicited therefor, the respondent herein launched a pr...
K.M. Mohamed Yousuf Sulaikha Ummal Vs. Asstt. Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC82; 1991(56)ELT324(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is accused in E.O.C.C. No. 4 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Egmore, Madras-8. 2. The premises of the petitioner was searched on 2-10-1985 by the personnel belonging to the Enforcement Directorate and during the course of such search certain incriminating materials were collected and seized, culminating in the initiation of adjudicatory proceedings by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras-6 who in his order No. DD/MAS/182/86 dated 12-6-1986, holding the petitioner guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA'), levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on her besides confiscating the sum of Rs. 15,000/- seized from her premises on the date of search with a direction for payment of penalty within forty five days from the date of receipt of the same. 3. The order in fact had been communicated to and received by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »