Chennai Court August 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.
Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: 1994LC519(Madras); 1992(58)ELT25(Mad)
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions, the question is whether the valve steel should be classified under Clause 1 of 73.15 of the Customs Tariff or whether it should be classified under Clause 2 of 73.15 of the Customs Tariff. According to the Revenue it must be classified as Stainless steel under Clause 2 and according to the petitioners it should be classified under Clause 1 which will entitle them to a lesser Customs Duty. It is not disputed before me that subsequent to the filing or writ petitions, the Collector of Madras in his order dated 18-5-1985 made in C3/1809 and 1810/83 and C3/86/1984 has accepted the contention of the petitioners and has held that the Valve Steel in question is different and distinct from Stainless Steel and therefore eligible to be classified under 73.15(1) of Customs Tariff. The learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents says that the authorities are now following the said judgment of Collector of Madras (Appeals). In view of this, all the writ petiti...
Padmanabha Pillai Vs. Chandra Pratap and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ315
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This Revision petition has been filed by the husband of the deceased third defendant in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit filed an application to bring on record the Petitioner herein as well as his two sons as the legal representatives of the deceased third defendant One of the defendants in the suit viz., the second defendant opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner herein is not a legal representative of the deceased third defendant That contention was accepted and the Court below ordered that the sons of the deceased, third defendant only should be brought on record as the legal representatives. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below is in error in placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act According to her, the third defendant, no doubt, was member of a Marumakkathayam family previously, but after the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›