Chennai Court November 1991 Judgments
Sri Tirupathi Plastics Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC163; 1992(60)ELT366(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an order of adjudication dated 26-9-1991. 2. The Petitioner filed bill of entry 24941 dated 30-7-1991 for the clearance of 13.8 Metric tonnes of Cellulose Acetate Cuttings. The goods were sought for clearance on the strength of invoice showing the value US $ 250 per MT raised by the suppliers. However, as per the recorded prices, the value was enhanced to US $ 280 per MT with importers' concurrence and the bill of entry was assessed. Subsequently, the goods were examined by Dock Inspection Staff on 14-8-1991. As per the Inspection Report it is found that 1.132 M.T. consist of concealed items like that of new spectacle frames made of Plastic, Plastic sheets decorative on both sides, Plastic granules, Plastic floor sweepings and sun glass. By letter dated 23-8-1991, the petitioner has stated that only one ton out of the quantity of 13.8 tons contained the mixed up items and also requested that the said goods may be allowed to be cleared after mutilation....
Tag this Judgment!Marappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Chennimalai Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ140
Kanakaraj, J.1. The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 282 of 1975, who suffered a decree in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court, are the appellants in the second appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs in the suit. Respondents 3 and 4 were the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit. For the purpose of convenience, I will refer to the parties as per their rank in the original suit.2. The suit was for declaring the plaintiffs title to 1/3rd share in the suit property, for partition and separate possession of the same, for directing the defendants to pay Rs. 7,500 as mesne profits for three years prior to the suit and for future mesne profits.3. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows:The suit property of the extent of 7.83 acres belonged to three groups, namely, the defendants 4 and 5 being one branch, Bomma Naicker and his two sons being the second branch and Nagammal and her minor sons being the third branch. On 9.8.1966 the fourth defendant (Malla Naicker) for...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramani Vs. the Management of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ58
Nainar Sundaram, Actg. C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10539 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner succeeded before the second respondent in I.D. No. 188 of 1982 in setting aside the order of dismissal made by the first respondent, and the second respondent by the award in I.D. No. 188 of 1982 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service. However, on the question of back wages, the second respondent awarded only 50% of the same. The first respondent was aggrieved with regard to that portion of the award of the second respondent directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and the first respondent came to this Court by...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Swamy and Others Vs. India Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas27(Mad); (1992)IMLJ523
Mishra J.1. This appeal has to be disposed of mainly on the ground whether the unsecured creditors were legally classified as one group and thus there has been compliance with the requirements of section 391 of the Companies Act in accepting the compromise for the revival of the company. 2. It is not in dispute before us that in C.P. No. 59 of 1982, a petition was filed in the found hope of reviving of the company and the court appointed, in the course of the said proceeding, one Mr. T. P. Nagarajan, who happened to be one of the directors of the company to be the chairman to conduct the meeting of unsecured creditors. He submitted a report to this court stating, inter alia, that such a meeting was held on September 15, 1982, at 11 a.m. at Palmgrove, 5, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras, and that the meeting was attended either in person or by proxy by 363 members of unsecured creditors, the value of their debt amounting to Rs. 36,85,539.09 as per the company's books of account as on March...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Civil Construction Company Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 1994LC145(Madras); 1992(58)ELT184(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners challenge an order dated 31-10-1980 passed on the application for waiver of predeposit of a duty of Rs. 14,58,530.46 p. and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh levied on them by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, the second respondent herein.2. After considering the case of the petitioners, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to make a per-deposit if a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Tribunal has decided that the issue with regard to the levy of duty has to be gone into the main case and after taking into consideration the balance sheet of the petitioners, the Tribunal found that a sum of more than Rs. 1.08 crores is due to the petitioners, in addition to a sum of more than Rs. 44.62 lakhs available by way of advances and deposits and the Tribunal thought it fit to pass an order directing the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs.3. I have heard Mr. T. K. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. S. Venkatachalamurthy, learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Kayes Constructions Through Its Managing Partner, Sri M. Krishnamoorth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ364
Lakshmanan, J.1. O.P. No. 21 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on the file of Sub-court, Madurai was transferred to the file of this Court for trial and determination as per order dated 3.8.1990 made in Application No. 2228 of 1990.2. The plaintiff is an Engineering Contractor undertaking civil works in Railways. The respondent railway administration called for limited tenders in their letter dated 5.11.1987 for the work of 'Madras-Gudur Section Bridge No. 237 at Km. 122/ 11, 113/12 proposed Reconstruction of Down Line in Newalignment with 20x 12.19 m. 1 x9.98m. and 1 x 7.39 m. girders.' The plaintiff is one of the contractors submitted his tender on 30.11.1987 as per the tender conditions, which was finally accepted by the defendant by their letter dated 29.1.1988 inNo. W/148/V/M/222. The plaintiff accepted the contract as desired by the respondent. The plaintiff again accepted the award of tender as per letter dated 12.4.1988 sent by the ra...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Swamy and ors. Vs. India Meters Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ523
Mishra, J.1. This appeal has to be disposed of mainly on the ground whether unsecured creditors were legally classified as one group and thus there has been compliance with the requirements of Section 391 of the Companies Act in accepting the compromise for the revival of the company.2. It is not in dispute before us that in C.P.No.59 of 1982, a petition was filed in the fond hope of reviving the company and the court appointed in the course of the said proceeding, one Mr. T.P. Nagarajan, who happened to be one of the directors of the company to be the Chairman to conduct the meeting of unsecured creditors., He submitted a report to this Court stating inter alia that such a meeting was held on 15.9.1982 at 11 a.m. at Palmgrove, 5, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras and that the meeting was attended either in person or by proxy by 363 members of unsecured creditors, the value of their debt amounting to Rs. 36,85,539.09 as per the company's books of account as on 31.3.1981.3. The resolution p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Cetex Petrochemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas298(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. This company petition has been filed by Cetex Petrochemicals Limited, having its registered office at No. 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (East), Mylapore, Madras-4, under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation approved by the shareholders of the said company at the meeting held on March 18, 1991, and for other reliefs. 2. The object of this petition is to obtain the sanction of the court to a compromise or arrangement between Cetex Petrochemicals Limited (transferor), petitioner in Company Petition No. 62 of 1991 and KEC International Limited (transferee) whereby, on and from June 1, 1990, the entire business and undertaking of CETEX as also its debts, liabilities, contracts, duties, engagements and obligations will vest in, be transferred to and taken over by KEC without any further act or deed. 3. The transferor-company was incorporated on February 15, 1988, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as a public l...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Chemical and Monomers Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(62)ELT693(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners in all the above three writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involved for consideration is also identical and consequently they are considered together. 2. W.P. 10775 of 1983 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to all for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3-9-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess central excise said to have been paid by the petitioner for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1979 and consequently direct refund of the same. 3. W.P. 10776 of 1983 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12-10-1983 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 26-3-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess central excise said to have been paid by the petitioner in respect of the period from 1-9-1979 to 30-11-1980 and consequently direct refund of the same. 4. W.P. 10777 of 1983...
Tag this Judgment!E. Pazhani Nattar Vs. S. Ezhumalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ592
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and, quash the proceedings of the second respondent in R.C.A. No. 1/26205/1982, dated 23.9.1983 and of the third respondent in Pa.Mu.Ka.Ni.Ma.No.715 of 1980, dated 20.10.1982.2. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, states that the first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the petitioner under a registered mortgage deed dated 13.9.1973 undertaking to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. The copy of the mortgage deed produced in the typed set discloses that the total extent of lands mortgaged was about 4.61 acres with well and electrical pump set with installations and that even as on the date of the mortgage, the property was said to be of the value of Rs. 20,000. The first respondent did not discharge the mortgage, but moved the third respondent by means of an application under Section 6(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »