Chennai Court February 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.
M.B. Veda @ Vedavalli Vs. P.S. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC418
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. Invoking Section 483, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner in MC. No. 483 of 1989 pending before the Principal Family Court, Madras, seeks a direction to the learned Judge to dispose of the above M.C. at an early date.The petitioner had filed the above case claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr. PC. against the respondent, her husband. She had also filed Cr. M.P. No. 865/1989 on the same day, praying for interim maintenance till the disposal of the main case. It is stated that while the above petitions were pending, the respondent filed Matrimonial O.P. No. 1183 of 1989 in the same Court under Section 13(l)(la)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner had filed her counter statement and had also filed M.P. No. 996 of 1990 under Section 24 of that Act claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month. The respondent is said to be working in B.H.E.L. as Assistant, Grade II, and earning a...
Venkatalakshmiah Vs. Venkaappa and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad399; (1991)IMLJ383
ORDER1. This civil revision petition by the 1st defendant is against the order dated 21-9-1990 in LA. No. 389 of 1990 refusing to send the disputed signature of the plaintiff in the registered sale deed dated 16-11-1968 to the Handwriting Expert for obtaining his opinion. The suit is for declaration of the 1st respondent plaintiffs title to the suit properties and for consequential injunction. The 1st defendant father and the 2nd defendant-son resist the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant purchased the suit property from the plaintiff's father himself by the above said sale deed dated 16-11-1968 and in the said deed, the plaintiff is the attestor. While the plaintiff was in the witness box in December, 1989 as P.W. 1, he denied that he signed the said sale deed as attestor. So, on or about 6-4-1990 before the defendants began to lead their evidence, they filed the abovesaid I.A. with a view to prove the signature of the plaintiff as attestor in the said deed.2. The Court below h...
Sulochana Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT22(Mad)
1. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are manufacturers of aerated water and soft drinks under brand names. The Products are liable for liable for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Prior to 1-3-1986, duty was leviable at the rates mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act itself and the subject goods fell under Item (d) of the First Schedule of Notification No. 201 of 1979 dated 4-6-1979 as amended from time to to time, the Central Government exempted all excisable goods in so far as raw materials or component parts which went into the manufacture of such goods which had been assessed to excise duty, were concerned. In respect of the raw materials used for the manufacture of soft drinks, only synthetic essence fell under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. Even this Notification No. 201/79 was rescinded on 1-3-1986. 2. To alleviate the cascading effect of the levy of excise duty the raw materials as well as the fi...
Union of India Vs. Pillaiyar Soda Factory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1994LC479(Madras); 1992(57)ELT261(Mad)
ORDER1. Six writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 12711 to 12716 of 1987 were allowed by a learned Judge, by order dated 29-7-1988 and the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, in his C.No. V/ID/15/3/82/CX-3 Order No. 66/87 dated 3-11-1987 was quashed. Six writ appeals have been filed by the Union of India and others against the order of the learned single Judge and since common questions of law and fact are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The forensic issue involved in these appeals is, whether the six writ petitioners are the manufacturers of an article having a common trade mark. The context in which the issue arises for our determination is that on 9-11-1982, the Central Excise Preventive Officer, Madurai, visited M/s. Vignesh Soda Factory, Madurai. It was found during the check that aerated waters were being filled, charged with Carbon-dioxide gas under pressure in bottles embossed with the image of 'GANESH' and bottles with 'GANESH' image impr...
Diraviyam Pillai Vs. Kamalam Ammal Alias Deivanai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ317
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff who lost his case in the trial court is the appellant, His suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits has been dismissed.2. The eight items of suit properties originally belonged to one Piramanayagam Pillai. In respect of the suit properties he executed a registered settlement deed Ex. A-13 on 29.11.1943 in favour of his mother and wife giving them joint life-interest without any right of alienation or creating any mortgage or charge and enjoining on them to do certain poojas in his family temple by spending Rs. 25 every year out of the profits of the properties. These two ladies died during the life-time of Piramanayagam. After their lifetime the properties were to devolve as stated in the settlement deed. It appears Piramanayagam himself has executed sale deeds in favour of the defendants stating in the sale deeds themselves that the settlement deed executed by him is not valid, and in pursu...
The Special Officer, Morangam Agricultural Service Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ35
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The third respondent was working as Secretary in the petitioner Co-operative Society. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 10.3.1987. An enquiry into the charges was held and on a report received that the charges are proved, a second show cause notice was issued to the third respondent proposing punishment by dismissal from service. It was at that stage the third respondent filed O.S.No.42 of 1988, D.M.C Tiruchengode, against the validity of disciplinary proceedings and obtained an order of interim injunction on 18.1.1988 itself. The petitioner filed an application for vacating the interim injunction, but the suit itself was ordered to be posted for disposal to an early date. It is not in dispute that the suit was ultimately dismissed on 28.2.1990.2. After having instituted the suit and obtained an injunction, the third respondent on 30.11.1988 filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, claiming subsis...
D.C.W. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT310(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner in all the cases is the same. The petitioner-company manufactures caustic soda by electrolysis of sodium chloride brine by BASF type high amperage mercury cells. During this process in the primary primary cell a mixture of gases consisting of Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen water vapour and a substantial percentage of chlorine content are produced. This mixture of gases is fed through pipe line and diverted into two branches. One branch goes to the liquid chlorine plant, with which we are not concerned. The other branch is taken to a furnace where it is burnt with Hydrogen resulting in Hydro chloric acid fumes which are absorbed in water to make commercial grade Hydro chloric acid. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the mixture of gases liberated in the primary and taken through pipe lines for manufacture of Hydro chloric acid, otherwise called wet chlorine, is goods within the meaning of Section 3 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whether i...
Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. Vijayaraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC280
Nainarsundaram, J.1. The very counter affidavit of the appellants declared that the container did not contain any contraband or prohibited goods. The only allegation on the part of the appellants is a mis-declaration of the goods and failure to unload the goods as per the import general manifest. In the said circumstances, the learned single Judge rightly held that there is no hurdle in directing re-export of the goods as asked for by the 1st respondent herein/the writ petitioner. With reference to the action that the appellants could take, liberty is given to initiate and complete the same and the 1st respondent herein/the writ petitioner has been directed to give an undertaking and personal bond to subject themselves to any action that the appellants may initiate and also to bind themselves to the ultimate adjudication, subject to their right to challenge such orders in appeal and in other forums. We do not think that the order of the learned single Judge requires any revision/rectif...
P. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. A. Dakshinamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ401
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These four writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge, in and by which he disposed of two writ petitions. Respondents 4 and 6 in W.P. No. 8125 of 1982 are the appellants in W.A. No. 1214 of 1988. The petitioners in W.P. No. 8125 of 1982 are respondents 1 and 2 in W.A. No. 1214 of 1988. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 8125 of 1982 are respondents 3 to 5 in W.A. No. 1214 of 1988. Respondents 5 and 7 to 12 are respondents 6 to 12 in W.A. No. 1214 of 1988. Respondents 6,7,12,15, 16 and 20 in W.P. No. 8126 of 1988 are appellants in W.A. No. 1215 of 1988. The petitioners in W.P. No. 81 26 of 1988 are respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 1215 of 1988. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 1826 of 1988 are respondents 7 to 9 in W.A. No. 1215 of 1988. The other respondents in W.P. No. 8126 of 1988 are respondents 10 to 25 in W.A. No. 1215 of 1988. W.A. Nos. 199 and 200 of 1990 have been preferred by respondents 1 to 3 in each of the writ petitions, ma...
Murugesan Vs. the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ483
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Pudukottai Municipality owns a shandy within its limits. The right to collect daily shandy collection for the period from 1.7.1990 to 31.3.1991 has been auctioned. One Murugesan was the highest bidder for Rs. 1,62,045. He made a deposit of Rs. 40,512. The auction was confirmed in his favour by the Municipality on 30.6.1990. He has to pay the balance bid amount at Rs. 20,255 per mensem on or before the 5th of every month, in default to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum. If he commits any default in payment of the bid amount his auction is liable to be cancelled. Due to rain and poor collection he says that he incurred a loss to the tune of Rs. 10,000 per month. Therefore he did not pay any amount. Apprehending that the licence to collect daily shandy collection granted to him will be cancelled by the Municipality, he, as plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 67 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Pudukottai against the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »