Chennai Court November 1991 Judgments

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Velmuruga ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(1995)ACC227; AIR1995Mad227

V. Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1986, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in having fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company for the payment of compensation in-, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the first respondent. There is no dispute that in the accident that took place on 25.11.1985 involving the scooter TDZ 2250 belonging to the third respondent and driven by the second respondent, the first respondent sustained certain injuries. Alleging that those injuries were sustained only as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the second respondent, the first respondent prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 60,000/ should be awarded to him. The second respondent remained ex parte. The third respondent in his counter denied the accident and further stated that if there was...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Everest Copiers Overruled

Court: Chennai

Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The substantial question of law involved for determination in this case is as to whether the taking of photostat copies with the use of xerox machine and delivering the copies so taken to the customers on receipt of certain charges will amount to sale of goods exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The Revenue has filed the above revision against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated July 20, 1982, made in C.T.A. No. 714 of 1981 whereunder the Tribunal held that there is no element of sale involved in the transaction and that the charges received by the assessee for taking and supplying xerox copies of the document would amount to cost of labour and skill, without which the xerox machine cannot work perfectly and smoothly. The respondent-assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 77,659 for the assessment year 1979-80 and claimed exemption from tax on the entire turnover thereby reporting t...

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1996(56)ECC104

ORDERGovindaswamy, J.1. The petitioner imported 523.0821 metric tonnes stearin in bulk under the bill of entry No. C.126 dated 6.9.1980 through vessel M.V. BAWOON. When the consignment was lifted out of the steamer, it was traced that there was a shortage. The survey agency, namely, Lloyds Agency submitted a report, which shows that there was a shortage of 9.232 metric tonnes of stearin. Since the petitioner has already paid duty for the entire 523.0821 metric tonnes, the petitioner claimed refund of duty paid for the short delivery of stearin, i.e., for about 9.232 metric tonnes, which worked out to Rs. 19,327.40. The petitioner, by his letter No. 2260/70-A/81 dated 2.3.1981 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Section), Madras-1 requesting extension of time for filing the claim for refund of duty, by reason of the fact that there was a delay in getting the Lloyds Agency's report and certificate. On 29.4.1981, the petitioner filed an application for refund of duty p...

Manoj and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1992CriLJ2053

Arunachalam, J.1. All these Writ Petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the detenus concerned in these writs, are stated to be involved in the same transaction. The contentions raised are also identical. All these writ petitions have been filed for the issue of a habeas, for the production of the respective detenus, before this Court, for their being set at liberty, after quashing the impugned orders of detention dated 15-2-1991 passed by the second respondent, viz., the District Magistrate and Collector, Pudukkottai. In all these writ petitions the affidavits have been sworn to by one T. S. Mani, who claims himself to be the fiends of the detenus. He has further averred, that he has filed these writ petitions on the instructions and the facts furnished by the respective detenus. The said Mani has also claimed that he is the State Organising Secretary of Dravidar Kashagam, which supports the organisation called 'The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam' (in short, LTTE...

Subramaniam Vs. State Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police, Erode

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1992CriLJ3501

ORDER1. The second accused in C.C. No. 461 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erode is the petitioner. The accused 1 and 2 were charged for offences punishable under Ss. 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 1980 read with S. 39 and S. 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. The first accused is the Proprietor of Astalakshmi Ice Factory at door No. 13-A, Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Road, Erode. The second accused is the lessee of the said factory and as per N.S.C. No. 269 electricity was supplied to the said ice factory and both the accused had tampered with the meter and consumed 30,412 Units of electricity for the Ice factory and caused loss of Rs. 60,690/- to the Government. A case was registered by the Erode Town Police under the abovesaid provisions of the Act. 3. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 20 and also marked M.Os. 1 to 5. The accused have not examined any defence witness n...

Titanium Equipment and Anode Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1994LC151(Madras); 1992(58)ELT185(Mad)

ORDER1. At the request of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in all these writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund specified amounts being the excess interest collected from the petitioners. A common counter-affidavit has been filed in all these writ petitions conceding the claim of the petitioners for refund of the differential interest collected from the petitioners for the period in question. This statement in the counter-affidavit is on the basis of the Trade Notice issued by the Department on 20-1-1989 as well as the notification issued by the Collector of Customs dated 19-7-1991. There is a Standing Order issued by the Collector of Customs in Ref. 31/90 to the same effect. Consequently, what remains to be done in these writ petitions is to direct the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, 8th Division, Madras, now impleaded as a party and ranked as second respondent, to pass orders on the r...

Mariyayee Alias Rajalakshmi Ammal Vs. M. Basheer and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1993ACJ456

V. Ratnam, J.1. This appeal has been prefened by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Tiruchirapalli, in M.C.O.P. No. 64 of 1984. According to the case of the appellant, on 20.7.1983, at about 9.45 p.m., the appellant along with her husband was walking along Tiruvanaikkaval South Street on the left side of the road. At that time, a moped bearing registration No. TNG 9782 and belonging to the first respondent, came driven by one Singaram from the opposite direction and dashed against the appellant, as a result of which she sustained a fracture in her left arm and other injuries. The accident, according to the appellant, took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the moped of the first respondent by its driver. In respect of that, the appellant prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be awarded to her against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, who are the respondents h...

Kantilal JaIn Vs. Union of India

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1992(60)ELT541(Mad)

ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application to suspend the sentence and to release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of C.A. No. 921 of 1989. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 8(c) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter called the Act, in S.C. No. 209 of 1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai on 13-11-1989 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for two more years. As against the said conviction and sentence the petitioner has filed C.A. No. 921 of 1989 and the same is pending before this Court. The petitions filed earlier in Cr. M. Ps. 15294/89 and 255/90 for the suspension of the sentence and for bail have been dismissed by this Court and the petitioner has come forward with the above criminal miscellaneous petition again for the suspension of the sentence and for bail pending disposal of C.A....

M. Venkataswamy Vs. Marudapurshpam and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1992)2MLJ245

Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment dated 10.4.1984 in O.S. No. 7259 of 1981 on the file of XI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, directing the plaint to be returned for presentation before proper court, on the ground that the said Court or High Court, in which the said suit was originally instituted as C.S. No. 451 of 1977, has no jurisdiction to try the said suit.2. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 63,650 together with interest, from the respondents personally and against the estate of the deceased Kailasa Gounder whose legal representatives are the said respondents. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is the widow, defendants 2, 3 and 5 are the sons and the 4th defendant is the daughter of the said Kailasa Gounder. The deceased Kailasa Gounder borrowed Rs. 33,000 on 18.6.1975 from A.Muthu Goundar, the plaintiffs father and executed a promissory note in favour of Muthu Gounder promising to repay the amou...

T. Srirenga Nachiyar and anr. Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Naicker

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1992)1MLJ449

ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against an order of injunction made in favour of the respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.276 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Aruppukkottai. The suit is one for declaration of plaintiffs title and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for part of the rent as payable to him. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 728 of 1985 for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting rent from the fourth defendant, who was in possession as a tenant. Interim injunction was granted in the first instance and defendants 1 to 3 filed an application I.A.No.73 of 1987 to vacate the interim injunction. By order dated 3.3.1987, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, held that the fourth defendant was in possession as a tenant of the first defendant and the latter was the only person entitled to collect rent from the fourt...