Chennai Court November 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.
N. Pandia Nadar and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC210
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above batch of cases involve similar and identical questions of law and facts and since submissions were also made by the counsel appearing on either side in common, they are dealt with together.2. The various writ petitioners are importers who have imported pulses from foreign countries. Pulses were totally exempt from the payment of customs duty under customs notification No. 129/76 dated 2.8.1976. Subsequently, it appears that customs notification No. 40/87 was issued which rescinded the earlier notification dated 2.8.1976 and imposed customs duty at 25% ad valorem on import of pulses. It appears that though by customs notification No. 324/87 dated 24.9.1987 the duty was reduced to 10% ad valorem, by another customs notification No. 286/88 dated 3.10.1988 the rate of customs duty was again fixed at 35% ad valorem. In these batch of cases, it is admitted by the learned Counsel that excepting W.P.No. 3057 of 1988 which concerned the applicability of customs noti...
Devaki Vs. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ397
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal has been taken up with the consent of parties. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Endowments, dated 21.11.1983 in A.P.No.l0 of 1983.2. The case of the plaintiff who is the appellant is that Arulmigu Angalamman of S. Palayapalayam, is the family deity of the plaintiff and that the trusteeship of the temple has always been with the family of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, one Marutha Pillai also known as Muthu Pillai and his brother Kuppa Pillai were the trustees and after them, Veerabadra Pillai, son of Marutha Pillai and Kandasamy and Karuppa Pillai, son of Kuppa Pillai became trustees. A reference is made to a settlement deed dated 9.4.1981 under which Kandasamy and Karuppa Pillai gifted certain property to the temple for its daily pooja. But, in the ...
G. Swaminatha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-r ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ203
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed for amendment of the decree. 2. It appears in favour of the petitioners an award was passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of his land. Dissatisfied with the amount granted by the Collector the petitioners filed Land Acquisition Original Petition 46 of 1988 in the Court for enhancement of compensation. The Court passed an order enhancing the compensation. Opposing that order the respondent-Government preferred an appeal to the High Court. Along with that a stay application was also filed. In that stay application the High Court passed a conditional order to the effect that stay is granted on condition of the Government depositing 50% of the enhanced compensation which the claimants will be entitled to receive. The claimants raised an objection stating that the amount deposited by the Government is less than the amount ordered t...
Annamarry Sathianathan and Others Vs. Ambrose and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad251; (1992)IMLJ447
ORDER1. This Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991.2. The brief facts which arc necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows: The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 18 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakonam and also filed I. A. No. 21 of 1991 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from functioning as Member of the Arakonam North Pastorate Committee. The vacation Civil Court heard the injunction application in I.A. No. 21 of 1991 and dismissed the same on merits. As against the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 43 of 1991 before the District Judge. The Revision Petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit and respondents in the C.M.A. before the learned District Judge raised an objection that since the impugned order was passed by the Vacation Civil Judge, the appeal lies only to the High Court by virture of the provis...
The State Vs. Kumaresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3115
1. This appeal by the State is against acquittal. 2. On 28-8-1984, at 12-30 p.m., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector attached to Virudhunagar Municipality accompanied by Sanitary Maistry, inspected the Oil Store situate at Door No. 110, Main Bazar, Virudhunagar. At that time, the respondent/accused, the proprietor of the Oil Store, was transacting the business. He was, it is said, dealing in various kinds of oil, such as gingelly oil, coconut oil and ground-nut oil. P.W. 1, it is said, expressed his intention of drawing of samples of coconut oil for purpose of analysis. The respondent/accused agreed for the same. Samples of coconut oil were drawn by P.W. 1, by complying with all formalities. One such sample had been sent to the Public Analyst, after due intimation to the Public Health Authority, to whom other two samples had been sent. The sample so sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated, as revealed by his report, Exhibit P. 10. 3. After complying with the other formalities of...
R. Lokeswari and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR501(Mad)
S. Ramalingam, J.1. One K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar died leaving behind him his self-acquired property which was inherited by his wife Manoranjitham and six daughters, all of whom were majors. The wife and daughters of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar executed a deed of sale dated January 18, 1991, for a total consideration of Rs. 5,25,000 in favour of one A. Gopalakrishnan. In that sale deed, it is stated that, on the demise of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar all of them have inherited shares in the property left behind by him and that each one is enjoying the said share but they are all joining together to execute the sale in favour of the purchaser. The registering officer called upon the petitioners to produce an income-tax clearance certificate as the value of the property conveyed is more than Rs. 2 lakhs. The present writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the above proceedings of the Registering officer and for a direction to him to accept the document and grant regist...
National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1994LC147(Madras); 1992(58)ELT174(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are a Co-operative Sugar Mills manufacturing sugar, which is excisable as Tariff 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Notification 108 of 1978 issued under the Central Excise Rules grants certain rebates in respect of free sale sugar and levy sugar, by way of production incentive, during the incentive period from 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978. The petitioners filed their application for incentive rebate in terms of the said notification by their letter dated 6-7-1978 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise (first respondent). The first respondent by his letter dated 8-12-1978 informed the petitioners that the rate of rebate was only Rs. 53.55 per quintal and not Rs. 54/- per quintal, on a quantity of 14,247.100 quintals and at the rate of Rs. 9.60 per quintal on the quantity of 26,458.900 quintals. The petitioners were accordingly directed to revise the claim. The petitioners submitted a revised claim on 16-12-1978. The total ...
B.K. Tara Vs. B.N. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC464
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the wife is against the decree for dissolution of marriage granted by the Court below under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P. No. 474 of 1989 filed by the respondent-husband in the Court below, viz., the Family Court, Madras. 2. No doubt, the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the wife were also alleged in the said original petition. But, decree has been granted only on the ground alleged under the abovesaid Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the abovesaid Act, viz., that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the said parties to the marriage ever since 16.6.1987, when the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was given in R.C. No. 205 of 1985 filed by the petitioner-wife in the Family Court, Bangalore till the date when the abovesaid H.M.O.P No. 474 of 1989 was filed, viz., 16.5.1989. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Madras found in his judgment that admittedly, there was no restitution of con...
Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters Association (Regd.) Rep. by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ582
Mishra, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court is preferred against the judgment in W.P. No. 19417 of 1990. A learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that it is not possible to declare that Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1990 is ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner/appellant is the president of the Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters' Association, a Society registered under the Societies' Registration Act. Earlier to the instant petition, he filed W.P. No. 1852 of 1990 seeking to restrain the State of Tamil Nadu from manufacturing and thereby doing business or trade in the so-called cheap liquor. That was dismissed on the ground that the State Government was acting under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment Act 12 of 1990 and so long as the validity of the said Act was not challenged, no writ would lie. The petitioner/appellant then filed the instant petition.3. We have the advantage of the return of the respondent her...
Bhikamchand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC36
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner involve overlapping questions of law and therefore require to be considered together.2. W.P. No. 1190 of 1983 has been filed for a writ of declaration that the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act 1982 (Central Act 15 of 1982) is ultra vires and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.3. W.P. No. 1191 of 1983 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the assessment order of the 3rd respondent dated 22-12-1982 in bill of entry bearing No. 002327 dated 20-12-1982 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release the goods imported by the petitioner, viz., stainless steel circles (defective) under the trade name M/s. Bhikamchand Steel House on payment of import duty of 45%.4. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, states that he imported 29.077 metric tonnes of stainless steel circles (defective circles) in 72 drums by Ves...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »