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.
Eacland Combines Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT21(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order :- The writ petition is against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in an application for stay and waiver of the deposit as a condition for filing an appeal. 2. The order against which the appeal was filed was made in August, 1990. The duty imposed by the Collector amounted to Rs. 7,59,501.28. The Tribunal, while considering the financial hardship of the petitioner, says that no such plea was made and when a question was asked to the counsel, he did make a plea, but did not have supporting evidence. On the question of limitation, the Tribunal has taken the view that the case that t...
M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ347; (1993)ILLJ312Mad; (1991)IIMLJ294
1. This Appeal, at the instance of the New India Assurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional Sub-Court), Tiruchirapalli in M.C.O.P. No. 267 of 1983. The 6th respondent herein owned a tractor PTL 8009 and a trailer PL 8063 and they had been insured with the appellant. On June 4, 1983, one Kaliamurthy, husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondents 2 to 5, who was employed as a loadman, was proceeding in the trailer, to go to the fields to lift a load of sugars and at that time, an accident took place resulting in Kaliamurthy falling down and the trailer running over and killing him instantaneously. The case of respondents 1 to 5 was that Kaliamurthy lost his life owing to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and the trailer belonging to the 6th respondent by its driver and in respect of that, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000 should be awarded to them. This claim was repudiated by the 6th respond...
Kanakavelu Vs. Mrs. Sajjanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ266
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petition for review has to be dismissed on the ground that the provisions of] Order 41, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to this case. Admittedly, there was a final decree in this case and the appeal pending in this Court is only against the preliminary decree. The language of Rule 6 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that 'the appeal' mentioned the rein should be from the decree which is sought to be executed. If there is no appeal against the said decree, there is no question of invoking this rule.2. Reliance is placed by learned Counsel on the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Katori and another v. M. Shafia Ahmad and Anr. : AIR1933All732 . In that case, the Allahabad High Court held that by implication the words in the rule must be taken to govern a case where an appeal is pending against the preliminary decree and the final decree is sought to be executed. The reasoning is that the f...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: II(1995)ACC141
Ratnam, J.CMA Nos. 864/85, 750 and 1192 of 1986:1. These appeals have been preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited, against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli, in M.A.C.O.P. Nos. 191 of l982 and 26 and 33 of l983.0.N.S.Farook and Sons, Madurai, owned a Matador van bearing registration No. T.N.A. 2829 and that was insured with the appellant. On 27.7.1982, while that van was returning from Kanyakumari to Madurai, at about 5 p.m. near Panangulam, an accident took place involving the vehicle T.N.A. 2829 and another lorry bearing registration No. TMP 5857. At the time when the accident took place, certain passengers were travelling by the van and among them, were Ganesan, Baskaran and Balasubramaniam. Ganesan, the 1st respondent in C.N.A. No. 864/85 sustained some injuries. Baskaran and Bala-subramaniam lost their lives. In respect of the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 864 of 1985 in that accident, h...
S.K. Babu Syed and anr. Vs. A. Zubaida Bee Represented by Her Power At ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ412
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 668 of 1985 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction against the respondents under Section 1O(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The first respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one hall, verandah-cumkitchen, bath room etc., in the front portion of the building bearing door No. 24, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13 on a monthly rental of Rs. 200. The second respondent is in occupation of two rooms, one hall and verandah in the rear portion on a monthly rental of Rs. 160. The petitioners husband is in Singapore, M...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC403
Ratnam, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the New India Assurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. Sub. Court), Tiruchirappali in M.C.O.P. No. 267 of 1983. The 6th respondent herein owned a tractor PTL 8009 and a trailer PTL 8063 and they had been insured with the appellant. On 4.6.1983, one Kaliamurthy, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5, who was employed as a loadman, was proceeding in the trailer, to go to the fields to lift a load of sugarcane at that time, an accident took place resulting in Kaliamurthy falling down and the trailer running over and killing him instantaneously. The case of respondents 1 to 5 was that Kaliamurthy lost his life owing to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and the trailer belonging to the 6th respondent by its driver and in respect of that, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000 should be awarded to them. This claim was repudiated by the 6th resp...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Vummiddi Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad190; (1991)IIMLJ222
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2439 of 1981, on the file ofthe Second Additional City civil Judge, Madras. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent. The facts leading to the appeal may be traced as follows: On 7-8-1964, an agreement of lease, as Ex.A. 1, was entered into between the plaintiff and Esso Standard Eastern Inc., in and by which a lease of the suit land was given to the defendant. It is sufficient if we recapitulate only the relevant terms of the lease. The period of lease was from 1-7-1964 to 30-6-1974. There was a payment of anadvance of Rs. 15,600/- to be adjusted from half of the monthly rent for the first four years. Clause 3(d) of the lease contemplated the renewal for the lease and since a part of the controversy in this Appeal arises out of this clause, we feel obliged to extract the said clause as follows :--'That the landlord will on the written request of the tenant made 2 ca...
M.R. Electronic Components Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC85; 1991(54)ELT63(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned order in C.No. 1513/88 dated 31-10-1988 passed by the Supdt. of Central Excise, Madras VII Division, Madras (second respondent). 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of potentiometers and switches. Under the earlier tariff, potentiometers and switches were classified under Tariff Entry 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. According to the petitioner, as per this classification, component parts are not duty payable. Under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, potentiometers fall under the Heading 8533 of the Tariff and the switches under the Heading 8529 and they are exempted from duty by virtue of the Notification No. 74 of 1975. 3. The second respondent issued three show cause notices to the petitioner-company calling upon it to submit an ...
Ranga Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT603(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent - The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 27-12-1990 passed in a stay application. 2. The appeal before the second respondent-Tribunal relates to the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 10,25,388.19 for the period from 11-6-1987 to 31-7-1989 and the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the first respondent-Collector of Central Excise on 8-8-1990. The Tribunal points out that the petitioner was paying under Tariff heading No. 86.07 and they suddenly changed the classification into Tariff Heading No. 7325 with effect from 1-3-1988 and so described the goods in the gate passes. It is disputed by the petitioner by referring to the actual classification list, which seems to suggest that the petitioner had only indicated Tariff Heading No. 73.25 and were also relying on exemption Notification No. 223/88 as amended by Notification No. 66/89 dated 1-3-1989. There is also question whether the petit...
The Workmen of Seshasayee Paper and Board Limited, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ53
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 669 of 1982. The petitioner-Union in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. For convenience's sake, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.2. The petitioner-Union raised an industrial dispute complaining of ousting, by the second respondent, of the petitioner-Union's members, who, according to the petitioner-Union, were only employees of the second respondent, though employed through the contractor, the third respondent. There was a conciliation over the industrial dispute and the same having ended in failure, the matter went before the first respondent and by the order impugned in the writ petition, the first respondent declined to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. In view of the controversy raised in the writ appeal, we feel obliged to extract the body of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »