Chennai Court January 1991 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.
S.V. Sivalingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ631
ORDER1. The petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 3918 of 1988 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. 2. He is a retail dealer in cosmetics and other allied provisions having his shop at No. 70, Santhome High Road, Madras-28. On 23-12-1987 at about 1.30 p.m., the Deputy Inspector of Labour, Squad-I, Madras - the respondent herein inspected the shop. During the course of inspection, it was found out that he was dealing in Rexona Soap, a packed commodity indicating the sale price in the outer carton by the manufacturer Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay. Rexona Soap had been sold to a retail dealer 'Amma Nana' at Rs. 53/- per dozen under bill No. 70519 dated 15-12-1987, thereby indicating the retail sale price they have sold at Rs. 4.42. But the maximum price per piece had been indicated by the manufacturer in the carton at 'Rs. 4.35 - local taxes extra'. The bill did not disclose any levy of any tax whatever. Since each piece had been sold at Rs. 4.42 i.e., 7 paise more ...
Conveyor Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT22(Mad)
ORDER1. The impugned order in this writ petition is one passed under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act relating to per-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal. The original order imposes a differential duty of Rs. 76,517.20 and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. In the present application before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Regional Bench at Madras, I find that the Tribunal has considered both the financial status of the petitioner as well as prima facie case in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the plea of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly approached the issue. However, a direction to pay the entire duty amount seems to be a little harsh on the petitioner. No doubt, the payment of the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been dispensed with. I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of...
Sulochana Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT523(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-12-1990 made by the second respondent - Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the question of waiver of deposit and stay. 2. The order, which was appealed against, imposed a duty of Rs. 2,67,577.90 on the petitioner. The second respondent has considered only the financial status of the petitioner, but has not considered the merits of the case or whether the petitioner has a prima facie case in the appeal. The Collector, therefore, directed payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. I have heard Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and he contends that the question related to re-classification and the same can be done only under limited circumstances. I have also heard Mr. Jayachandran, counsel for the respondents. I have always pointed out that in matter of waiver of deposit, the Appellate Authority should exercise judicial discretion and cannot set only on the capability of the parties. Having given my anxious con...
Tamil Nadu News Printers and Papers Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT206(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the Order of the High Court, dated 9-1-1991 and made herein and the Counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the Order in Misc. Order in Misc. Order No. M-285-90-D (A.No. E/2464/86-D dated 6-12-1990 on the file of 2nd respondent comprised in the return of respondents to the Writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Srinivasamurthy, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents the Court made the following Order :- An application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act was disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras on 20-2-1986. The Petitioner Company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on or before 31-3-1986 as against a total demand of Rs. 22...
Tan India Ltd. Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1993LC590(Madras); 1991(55)ELT170(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondent, namely, the Union of India, to forbear from collecting excise duty in excess of 50% of the normal duty payable under Tariff Item No. 23 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of production of cement by the petitioner-company.2. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner relies on a Press Note issued by the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Government of India dated 4-1-1979 in which the Government stated that after studying the report of the two Working Groups set up by the Government, the Government had decided to encourage the mini cement plants and for that purpose 'the Mini Cement Plants will be allowed a rebate in the payment of excise duty upto 50% for a period of five years' and contends that in keeping with the above Press Note, the petitioner-company a Mini Cement Plant which commenced ...
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Airport Vs. Sudha @ Sud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC11
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. This is an application by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Airport, Tiruchirapalli under Section 439 Cr. PC read with 482 Cr. PC for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent herein by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli.2. A case in O.R. No. 34/90 Customs Airport Trichy was registered and the respondent was the second accused. The offence was under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The co-accused was found to be in possession of 266 grms. of heroin valued at Rs. 26,60 (sic) concealed in his shoes in the Airport. On his information, the complicity of the respondent came to light. After investigation complaint was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Trichy on 19-7-90. The respondent sought bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy, on 2-7-90 in Crl. M.P. No. 1799/90, bail was granted and it was later modified on 6-7-90 which the respondent was ordered to be released on bail on condition that he deposi...
Sarangapani Vs. K.V. Parthiban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ163
Srinivasan, J.1. The second appeal has been filed by the 7th defendant in the suit which was one for partition of plaint A and B Schedule items into 16 shares and for allotment of five shares to the plaintiff.2. The short facts are these : One Veeraraghava Gounder, the father of the plaintiff, second defendant and third defendant, and the husband of the first defendant was the head of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons. Veeraraghava Gounder has four sons. The eldest son by name Ramabiran who was examined as P.W.3 in the suit had relinquished his interest in the family properties. The second defendant was the second son. The plaintiff and third defendant are younger to him. Veeraraghava Gounder died sometime in 1961. The second defendant was admittedly managing the properties after the father's death. The case set out in the plaint is that the second defendant was a drunkard and he was leading a wayward life with concubines. According to the plaint, the debts incurred b...
Chenniammal and ors. Vs. Diamond Jubilee Governing Council, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ186
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this case. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Act 38 of 1990. Under Section 4 of the said Act, any cultivating tenant, who is in arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the fasli year ending with the 30th day of June, 1989 and for any previous fasli year and outstanding on the date of the publication of that Act shall within two months from the date of such publication, intimate his option in writing to the competent authority to pay the current rent and the one-fourth or one-third of the arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part II or Part III of the Act, for availing relief under that Act from the payment of the said arrears of rent. It was contended that Section 6 of the Act which provides for stay of suits is an independent provision and will not depend upon the exercise of option under Section 4 of the Act and not even without exercising such option, he is entitled to claim the relief under the Act. I do not agree, the lang...
Crompton Engg. Co. (Madras) Ltd. (Now Best and Crompton Engineering Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)92CTR(Mad)207; [1992]193ITR483(Mad)
SOMASUNDARAM J. - At the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 3,07,238 which represented the incremental liability for gratuity pertaining to the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jeeps are only motor cars for the purpose of depreciation ?'The assessee is a limited company. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,07,238 being provision for gratuity on the ground that the conditions laid down in section 40A(7) of the Act are not satisfied. The Income-tax Officer also disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,493 being the excess cost of jeeps over Rs. 25,000. On appeal, the Appellate Assis...
K.C. Dinakaran Vs. S.P. Rajendran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad58; (1991)IIMLJ89
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order of the Election Court in Election O. P. No. 42 of 1986, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, dated 19-1-1990.2. Brief facts are the following:--Election for the post of Vice-Chairman ofOlakkur Panchayat Union was held on 20-6-1986. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were the only two candidates for Vice-Chairmanship. 58 Voters (Panchayat Presidents) participated in the election including the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is the Case of the petitioner that he secured 28 votes and the 1st respondent secured 27 votes and the 4th respondent declared three votes as invalid. Consequently, when he was about to enter the petitioner's name as the successful candidate in the records, at the instance of the second respodnent, two votes declared as invalid were counted again in favour of the first respondent, and ultimately the 4th respondent declared the first respondent as successful candidate sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »