Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
N.A. Victor Immanuel and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2014
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chengai Anna Detachment at Kancheepuram, on credible information, that the Officers and Staff of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu are collecting weekly mamool from prohibition offenders and sharing the amount among themselves, along with the Special Officer of District Inspection Cell, Collectorate, Kancheepuram and the party under the supervision of Thiru D. Manoharan, Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Investigating Agency Unit, Madras, conducted surprise check at the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu on 21-11-1988 between 12-15 to 16-30 hours.2. At about 12 hours, before the party entering into the office, one Murugan of Kolathur village was found coming out of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Office and he was intercepted and questioned. He appeared to have stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 400/- as weekly mamool for selling illicit arrack to the Sub-Inspector of Police Thiru Mariappan (Accus...
Tag this Judgment!Asia Tea Enterprises Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991LC534(Madras); 1991(52)ELT351(Mad)
ORDERThis Writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. Jayachandran, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 the court made the following order :- The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondents to finalise the classification of the instant tea manufactured by the petitioners against the classification filed in C.L. No. 10/88-89 and 23-3-1989 under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner has filed the classification list immediately after 1989 Budget claiming instant tea under sub-heading 2107.91, whereas the Department has required the petitioners to pay duty under sub-heading 2101.20. The petitioners paid duty under protest. The classification list has not yet been finalised by the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Rukmani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ1150
T. Somasundaram, J.1. The respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 are the respondents in this civil miscellaneous appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983.2. The petitioners filed M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The case of the petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 is as follows:The 1st petitioner is the wife, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the sons, the 3rd petitioner is the daughter and the 5th petitioner is the grandson (daughter's son) of the deceased, Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar along with his brother-in-law were standing and talking on...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rukmani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ15
Somasundaram, J.1. The respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 are the respondents in this civil miscellaneous appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983.2. The petitioners filed M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the death of the deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The case of the petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983 is as follows : The first petitioner is the wife, the petitioners 2 and 4 are the sons, the third petitioner is the daughter and the fifth petitioner is the grandson (daughter's son) of the deceased, Chandrasekaran Chettiar. The deceased Chandrasekaran Chettiar along with his brother-in-law were standing and talking in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivanandam Ammal Vs. S. Kadiresan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ292
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This case provides a glaring instance where an application under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code is ordered without the Court applying its mind to the provisions of the said section. Under the section, a suit can be stayed only if the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they all or any of them claim litigating under the same title.2. In this case a suit was filed by the petitioner's father for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession with past and future measne profits against his brother and others. That suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai and during the pendency of an appeal against the same, the petitioner's father died. The petitioner and other legal representatives came on record in the appeal and ultimately the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal, The order of rema...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dhanaraj and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1990
Reported in: II(1992)ACC92
Kanakraja, J. 1. The parents of the victim in a motor accident are the appellants before this Court The appellants filed a claim petition M.O.P. No. 378 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chengalpattu claiming a sum off Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, arising out of the accident on 24.3.1982 resulting in the death of their son. The case of the appellants is that on 24.3.1982 at about 11 A.M. their son Ethiraj had parked an Ambassador Car driven by him on the left hand side of the G.S.T. Road and was standing outside the car by keeping the right hand side door open. At that time, the Ambassador car, bearing registration No. T.M.V. 8481 coming in the opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently, had dashed against the deceased Ethiraj causing fatal injuries. The first respondent owner of the car T.M.V. 8481 remained ex pane. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement contending inter alia that the driver of the tourist car T.M.V. 8481 had...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Wander Ltd., Bombay and Etc. Vs. M/S. Antex India Pvt. Ltd. Banga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad109
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above two writ appeals arise out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 6-4-1990 in W.P. No. 5398 of 1989 filed by M/s. Antex India (P) Ltd. Bangalore 80 whereunder the learned Judge while quashing the impugned order dated 2-12-1989 issued by the State Drug Controller, Tamil Nadu in his reference No. 7771/IW/ 1/89, further directed the said Authority to pass orders by exercising the powers for cancellation of the licence issued to the appellant in W. A. No. 527 of 1990 (Alfred Berg & Company (I) Private Ltd. Madras-7) to manufacture a drug under the brand name Cal-De-Ce', in the light of the observations contained in the judgment, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellants in W.A. Nos. 526 and 527 of 1990. The appellant in W.A. No. 526 of 1990 is the third respondent in the writ petition (M/s Wander Limited, Bombay-18) and the appellant in W. A. No. 527 of 1990 is the second respondent in the writ petition.2. It is necessary to set o...
Tag this Judgment!D. Gopalan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2249
ORDER1. Petitioner herein, who has described himself as the Public Interest Litigant General Secretary, Madras District Social Welfare Association, has moved this Court for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to seise the passport of the fourth respondent and pass suitable orders for his presecution for the alleged violation of the provisions of S. 3 read with S. 12 of the Passports Act. 2. The fourth respondent is a member of the Council of State of the Parliament of India. He allegedly left India on 5-2-1989 and reached Sri Lanka on 7-2-1989 without having a passport or any other travel document. He has himself, it is said, made press statements on two occassions admitting this fact. Petitioner has stated that the fourth respondent, who was expected to abide by law and respect law more than any other person, admittedly violated the provisions of the Passports Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has made himself liable for prosecution for the said offence. No action was, ho...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India, Madras Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ155Mad
Dr. Anand, C.J. 1. The ambit and scope of S. 25F read with S. 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), is the pivotal question requiring determination at our hands in this writ appeal. The circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal need a notice at the threshold. 2. The following industrial dispute between a workman and the management of State Bank of India, Madras, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication under S. 10(1)(d) of the Act by Government of India, vide order No. D-12012/209/80-D.A., dated 30 July 1981 : 'Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Madras, in terminating the services of Sri A. Perumal, ex-watchman, with effect from 21 May 1979 is justified If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled !' 3. The cause of Perumal had been espoused by the second respondent herein. According to the case of the Workman, he after serving in the Indian Army, as a driver, for about 15 years was ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vijayakumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR245(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the grant of a certificate to enable him to transfer the property bearing door No. 5, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on December 10, 1987. On February 18, 1988, the first respondent wrote to the petitioner that there were arrears to the tune of Rs. 3,330 in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 and further the assessment proceedings for the years 1984-85 to 1986-87 were pending on account of the non-production of the profit and loss account arising out of the production of the picture called 'Kai Kodukkum Kai'. Therefore, a difficulty was expressed in the issue of a certificate under Section 230A of the Act and the petitioner was called upon to paythe tax arrears and co-operate with the Department in the completion of the pending assessments. On February 24, 1988, the petitioner caused a letter to be sent to the first respondent purportin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »