Chennai Court June 1990 Judgments
Mac Electronics Vs. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC176; 1991(53)ELT199(Mad)
ORDER1. The accused, who along with others are facing trial before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences I) Egmore, Madras in E.O.C.C. No. 68 of 1983 for offences under the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, has filed the present revision against the order passed by the trial Court in M.P. No. 1447 of 1983 filed by him under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., refusing to direct the first respondent herein to produce the Report of the Superintendent of Police (S.P.'s Report) on the basis of which the first respondent had laid the complaint. 2. Under Sec. 6 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the first respondent had filed the complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. Before the trial could commence, the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction from the court to the first respondent to produce the S.P.'s report in the case, as well as the first information report, stating that...
Tag this Judgment!Principal, Tamil Nadu theological Seminary Vs. A. Saraswathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC163; 1991ACJ310
K.M. Jatarajan, J.1. These three civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the common order in M.C.O.P. No. 115 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 69 of 1984. The claimants are the appellants in C.M.A. No. 128 of 1984 for enhancement of the compensation. The first respondent is the appellant in C.MA No. 144 of 1984.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: The appellants in C.MA No. 128 of 1984 who are the claimants have filed M.C.O.P. No. 115 of 1982 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Anantharamakrishnan who is the husband of the first claimant, father of the second claimant and son of the third claimant. The case of the claimants is that on 30.9.1981 the deceased Anantharamakrishnan left his house at about 8.30 a.m. and while he was proceeding to his office on h...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Ramanujammal Vs. C. Parankujam Minor Represented by Father and Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)116MLJ1
Somasundaram, J.1. The defendant, who succeeded before the trial Court but failed before the lower appellate court, is the appellant in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, in this second appeal, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature given in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 1743 of 1979 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession of the suit property, which is a shop bearing door No. 70/72 and new No. 87, Amman Koil Street, Madras and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,700 towards past damages for use and occupation and for Rs. 75 per month towards future damages for use and occupation with effect from 1-4-1977.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property belonging to the plaintiff was let out to One Loganayakiammal on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 for non-residential purposes. When the rent for the month of June, 1973 was sent by money order by the defendant, the plaintiff enquired into the matter and found th...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ354
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the appellate authority of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. 1947/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein made in TNSE No.2/89, dated 30-6-1989 and to quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, it is averred as follows:The second respondent viz., D. Ganesan was an employee of the petitioner's Corporation. He was working as an Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, Erode. Sub-Division of Coimbatore from 24-11-1980 to 14-2-1983. He stayed away from duty with effect from 14-2-1983 onwards. During his tenure of service in Erode Sub-Division, he has misappropriated Corporation money, delay...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mukhthar Pasha Vs. the General Manager, Personnel Administration, B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ195
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.1. The Appellant at the relevant time, was serving as Sub Inspector in the Security Force with the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy. He applied to the second respondent, the Senior Security Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, for permission to grow a beard as he intended to perform Haj Pilgrimage and to sport the beard thereafter also. Permission was granted for a specified period of 45 days, vide letter dated 17th January, 1985. That permission for the specified period, however, was not considered sufficient by the appellant and vide his letter, dated 25th January, 1985, he sought permission to keep the beard beyond the period of 45 days which in any case had lapsed. In his letter, he submitted that Muslims employed in police, Military and other forces as also in other walks of life were allowed to grow beard and that, therefore, he should not be denied the right to grow beard. The appellant, however, was informed by the third respondent, vi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lakshmi Saraswathy Motor Service (Firm) Gudiyatham Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad133
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. These writ petitions mainly challenge the validity of the final Inter-State Agreement dated 3-6-1975 comprised in G. O. Ms. No. 1000/- Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 3-6-1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, S. 2 dated 4-6-1975 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Amongst the other grounds of attack, what is being primarily urged is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in person, as contemplated under S. 63(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter refefred to as the Act, which governed the situation at the relevant point of time; and this violated the principles of natural justice. The factual position with regard to non-hearing of persons like the petitioner is not in dispute, and the respondents have not filed any counter, offering any stand or explanation over this contention. Section 63(3-A) of the Act read as follows:--'Every proposal to enter into an agreement betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Motor Service (Firm) Vs. the State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ191
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ petitions mainly challenge the validity of the Final Inter-State Agreement dated 3.6.1975 comprised in G.O.Ms. No.1000 -. Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 3.6.1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, dated 4.6.1975 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Amongst the other grounds of attack, what is being primarily urged is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in person, as contemplated under Section 63(3-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which governed the situation at the relevant point of time; and this violated the principles of natural justice : The factual position with regard to non-hearing of persons like the petitioner is not in dispute, and the respondents have not filed any counter, offering any stand or explanation over this contention. Section 63(3-A) of the Act read as follows:Every proposal to enter into an agreement between...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Kaspar Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)192MLJ1
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the second respondent, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Thanjavur made in No. 87911/KO 18D/89 U.Vs. dated 1.9.1989 and to quash the same and further direct the second respondent to remove the name of the petitioner herein from the black-list....3. The petitioner herein challenges an order of the second respondent dated 1.9.1989 and also prays to direct the second respondent to remove his name from the black-list. The petitioner herein is working as a II Class Contractor in Public Works Department from 10.11.1981. It seems the petitioner was allotted to do repair in Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thanjavur at an estimated amount of Rs. 20,000. It...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sileshkumar R. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR566(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following two question for our opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale proceeds of the house property credited in the books of the firm is in the nature of a trust and hence it does not form part of the assets of the firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the sum of Rs. 2,923 and Rs. 47,077 from the principal value of the estate ?' 2. The first question pertains to the exclusion of Rs. 17,761 while computing the principal value of the half share of the deceased in the partnership firm, M/s. Manilal and Sons. The said amount represented the credit balance in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Moosa Sulaiman Sait and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)493MLJ1
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. There are four writ appeals. The controversy relates to the multi-storeyed constructions that are being done by Mr. Abdul Khader Yunus at Door Nos. 10 and 11, Haddows Road, Madras. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, owner of Door No. 16, Pycrofts Garden Road, Madras; Mr. Hajee Moosa Sulaiman Sait, owner of Door No. 9, Haddows Road, Madras; and Mr. Ponniah, owner of Door No. 12, Pycrofts Garden Road, Madras, all neighbours of Mr. Abdul Kliader Yunus, are objecting to the multi-storeyed constructions of the latter. In view of the, scope of the points urged before us, instead of doing a filigree or trellis work of the facts of the case in the body of the judgment itself, we propose to and we do annex to it copies as per the relevant records made available to us; and they shall speak for themselves. Mr. Abdul Khader Yunus sought permission to put up a multi-storeyed building, consisting of ground floor plus ten floors (residential flats) at Door Nos. 10 and 11, Haddows Road, Ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »