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.
Upper India Bearings and Bushings Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC145
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of bearings (Auto parts). These were classified under Tariff Item 34-A and the petitioner was called upon to pay central excise duty. The petitioner challenged the validity of that claim for payment of duty by filing appeals and revisions but ultimately paid.2. On 25.9.1978, a Tariff Advice was issued clarifying that bearings having thickness of more than 3.65 mm. are classifiable as thick walled bearings and consequently are not excisable. Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed applications for refund for the clearances effected between January 1971 and December, 1978. Apart from the factory at Madras, the petitioner has also a factory at Vellore. In respect of the clearances from that factory for the period from 21.4.1977 to 30.11.1978, the petitioner filed applications for refund. The applications for refund for the period prior to December, 1978 were rejected on the ground that under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,...
The Chief Administrative Officer (Disciplinary Authority), Visvesvaray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)150MLJ1
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.7.1988 in Writ Petition No. 6803 ofl985 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking to quash the order of dismissal dated 6.5.1983 passed by the first appellant and confirmed by the order dated 20.5.1984 passed by the second appellant and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with effect from 29.9.1982 and for all attendant benefits.2. The respondent, at the relevant point of time, was employed as a stenographer in the Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd., a State Undertaking. When he was working in the Madras branch, one S.K. Somanath was the Branch Manager. On account of certain allegations against the said Branch Manager, certain enquiries were held in which the respondent figured as a witness for the management, and a result of which, the said Somanath came to be dismissed from service. Thereupon the respondent had been transferred from Madras to B...
C. Kaliammal and ors. Vs. the Forest Range Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)568MLJ1
ORDERMishra, J.1. These petitions have been listed before us on a reference by Bakthavatsalam, J., who has noticed a conflict of his views with a judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, : (1985)2MLJ67 . Since we propose to dispose of the petitions by not merely answering the reference but deciding all the issues involved in the case we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.2. Before, however, we advert to the facts of the case, we may at this stage refer to the order of reference which says:Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of Ratnam, J. in Kodaika-nal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, : (1985)2MLJ67 , which supports his contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for forest cases draws my attention to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), and submits that this provision was not brought to the notice of th...
Kailasam Vs. T.K. Muthusamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)354MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision arises out of an application for 'setting aside the sale held' in Court auction under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. The sale was held on 24.3.1982. The petitioner herein purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 12,250. The property comprises of S. Nos. 149/9 and 149/10 of a total extent of 4 acres 18 cents. It is stated that one acre of land is a garden land and the rest are dry lands.2. The only ground on which the sale was sought to be set aside as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. is that the proclamation was not published in a proper manner before the sale and the value of the property in the estimate of the Court was not mentioned and that the property had been sold for a very low price. The affidavit filed in support of the application is bereft of any details. Excepting setting out the above matters in one sentence, the affidavit does not set out how the sale was vitiated by irregularities, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›