Chennai Court August 1990 Judgments
Dhanaraj and anr. Vs. Rubia and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ84
J. Kanakaraj, 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. 370 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu, claiming a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- 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. TMV 8481 coming in the opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased Ethiraj causing fatal injuries. The first respondent owner of the car TMV 8481 remained ex pane. The second respondent insurance company filed a counter statement contending, inter alia, that the driver of the tourist car TMV 8481 had no...
Tag this Judgment!Viniba Products Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC153
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietory concern engaged in the manufacture of talcum powders. The goods are excisable items under Tariff Item No. 14F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner filed price lists for the goods manufactured by them and claimed abatement of graded quantity trade discounts at the time of the assessment of the goods to excise levy on ad valorem basis. Though a show-cause notice was issued on 13.12.1973, the first respondent ultimately dropped all further proceedings by his order dated 15.6.1974. Nearly after two years another show cause notice dated 16.8.1976 was issued to the petitioner, in and by which the petitioner was directed to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as to why certain discounts at the rate of 20% should not be disallowed. It was proposed to demand differential duty for the. past sales since 1973. The petitioner gave his explanation....
Tag this Judgment!The Food Corporation of India, Represented by Its Zonal Manager Vs. Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)173MLJ1
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The first-respondent in W.P. No. 7108 of 1981 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The petitioner in the writ petition is the first respondent herein and the second respondent in the writ petition is the second respondent herein. Convenience suggests to us to adopt in the course of this judgment, the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition. The petitioner was in. the employ of the respondents. The petitioner was sought to be proceeded against in disciplinary action on the ground that he, along, with others and conniving with them, during the period from 14.3.1974 to 20.3.1975 committed gross misconduct by fraudulently and dishonestly appending certificates to the bills submitted by a Food Corporation of India contractor to the effect that the services for which charges were claimed, were performed and carried out satisfactorily and the quantity handled was correct and thereby facilitated the contractor to get an excess payment of Rs. 19,180...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dhanaraj and anr. Vs. Rubia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ490
Kanakaraj, 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 of 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 an 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. TMV.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 TMV.8481 remained ex parte. The second respondent insurance company filed a counter statement contending inter alia that the driver of the tourist car TMV.8481 had no li...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation Vs. S.V. Uth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ534
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15706 of 1989. The respondent in that writ v petition is the appellant, herein. The petitioner in that writ petition is the respondent herein. We are referring to the parties in this Judgment of ours as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner, who was the senior Regional Manager under the respondent was visited with two memorandums of charges in disciplinary action; one dated 8.12.1982 and the other dated 10.12.1986. At present we are concerned only with the charge memorandum dated 10.12.1986. Though there had been agitations in the past over the processes taken in the disciplinary action against the petitioner, it is sufficient for the purpose of resolving the question coming up for consideration in this writ appeal, if we begin the narration of facts on and from. 10.11.1989, when by virtue of a decision of this Court in W.A.No.536 of 1988 and W.P.No.6837 of 1988, ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm M.M. Textiles Vs. Firm Raghuram Textiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ557
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant-firm is the appellant. The suit by the respondent is for recovery of Rs.22,169.26 with interest. The said sum is composed of the following items:(1) Rs. 15,933.76 towards balance price for textiles (H.L. Semi variety cloth) of 3455 metres sold by the plaintiff, (who is carrying on textile business at Erode) to the defendent, (who is carrying on business at Bangalore) and delivered according to the defendant's directions through lorry at Bombay and (2) (a). Rs.4,853.10 towards the loss suffered by the plaintiff in the resale of the textiles of the balance 6833 metres of the same variety which were also sent by lorry to Bombay from Erode on instruction from the defendant, but, due to the defendant not taking delivery at Bombay lorry office, were brough back to Erode by the plaintiff and sold there. (2) (b). Rs.1362.40 towards the freight charges for sending the goods to Bombay and bringing them back to Erode as aforesaid, in respect of the above said 6833 m...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.R. Narayanan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1993]199ITR155(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. All the above tax cases raise a common question of law under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), and, therefore, we proceed to pass a common order. 2. The agricultural Income-tax Officer passed separate orders against each of the petitioners herein under section 65 of the Act permitting them to compound the agricultural income-tax on the extent of lands held by them for the assessment year 1983-84 in some cases and 1984-85 in some other cases. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax issued a show-cause notice under section 34 of the Act proposing to cancel the said order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer granting permission to compound the agricultural income-tax under section 65 of the Act. In the show-cause notice, it is stated that M/s. Kamadhenu Estate consisting of 13 partners, a registered firm, is an assessee in the books of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil-1, and that the said Officer has determ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chinnasamy Vs. Kannammal @ Muniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ70
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition is against order in I.A. No. 286 of 1989 in O.S. No. 182 of 1989, granting interim maintenance to the 1st respondent, who is the wife and respondents 2 to 4, who are the minor daughters, of the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the said suit for their maintenance and for marriage expenses of respondents 2 to 4. The said I.A. has been filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 151, C.P.C.2. The trial court awarded Rs. 100 per month to each of the said daughters who are aged above 15, 1 and 2 1/2 years and Rs. 150 to the said wife by way of interim maintenance. Against the said order this civil revision petition has been filed by the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the other respondents.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to award interim maintenance, that Section 18 of the said Act does not speak of interim maintenance and that the cour...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Bashyam Reddy and Co. Rep. by Its Managing Partner R. Yuvaraj Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ175
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. The matter arises under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioner in this original petition is the contractor. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 44 of 1987 before this Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for a direction to file the award. This Court has received the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 4.11.1987. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 214 of 1988 for the following reliefs:(a) To set aside that portion of the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act in respect of the rejection of the part of the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1, 59, 960-07; (b) To modify the Award by directing the payment of the sum of Rs. 1, 59, 960-07 to the plaintiff (the amount rejected by the Arbitrator), in addition to the amount already awarded to the plaintiff, with interest as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code from the date of the passing of the decree; andThe facts in brief are as follows:The petitioner was awarded a contract for clearing cu...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasamy and anr. Vs. Parasuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ393
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this Revision Petition, which is directed against an order of the appellate authority, calling for findings from the Rent Controller, after setting aside an order passed by him in the Rent Control Original Petition, allowing the same on a preliminary issue.2. The Petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii). One of the contentions raised by the petitioners herein was that the property was purchased benami in the name of the respondent by the first-petitioner and the petition for eviction was not sustainable. When the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, was passed, an application was taken out by the respondent on the footing that the plea of benami was not available to the petitioners herein in view of the provisions of the said Act and the Petition for eviction should be allowed. Accepting the said contention, put forward by the respondent, the Rent Controller straightway allowed the Petition for e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »