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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Alco Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC85; 1993LC584(Madras); 1991(55)ELT184(Mad); (1991)IIMLJ287
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 26-8-1987 of the learned single Judge made in a batch of writ petitions disposed of together having regard to the fact that they involve a common question as to whether 'wet grinder' manufactured and sold is eligible to excise duty under Excise Tariff Item 33-C of the Central Excise Tariff in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Having regard to the nature of the issue involved before us, they are dealt with in common by us.2. The basis and relevant facts necessary for our purpose are beyond controversy. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners manufacture and sell what is commercially known and called as 'wet grinders'. The goods sold are complete units after assembling in the respective factory of the manufacturers and that the invoices are raised separately for motor portion and for grinder portion and that what is manufactured is really the grinder portion and the e...
T. Muthusamy Vs. P.O., Labour Court, Coimbatore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ405Mad
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The only question involved in this writ appeal is whether the Learned Single Judge was right in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in directing reinstatement of the appellant without back wages in lieu of his dismissal ordered by the second respondent. 2. The appellant was charge-sheeted and four charges were levelled against him. The first charge related to the disobedience of the appellant to follow the order of the management regarding insertion of cones in Alkathene bags. The second charge pertained to the alleged instigation of the appellant to his co-workers, Somasundaram and Vallingiri also not to put the cones in the bag. The third charge revolved round the refusal of the appellant to clean the half cops as well as the anti-rab brush while the fourth charge related to the act of the appellant in refusing to leave the premises of the respondent even after having been suspended ...
Andhra Civil Construction Company Represented by Its Managing Partner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ93
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment of a learned single Judge dated 28.3.1990 dismissing W.P. Nos. 12324 of 1987; 916 of 1988 and 4174 of 1988.2. The appellant in all the three writ appeals is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, M/s. Andhra Civil Construction Company-a Civil Engineering Firm having its Registered Office at Madras from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it transpires that during 1979, the Tuticorin Port Trust, with a view to deepen the approach channel at Tuticorin Port from 27 to 30 invited tenders for deepening the approach channel measuring 1400 Mts. Work was allotted to two contractors in December, 1979 with a view to have the deepening work executed expeditiously. The channel was divided into two portions and (i) Reach from Ch.00 Mts. to 525 Mts. and from Ch.1050 Mts. to 1400 Mts. was allotted to the appellant and (ii) Reach from Ch.525 Mts. to 1050 Mts. was allotted to Dredging Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter calle...
G.T.C. Industries Ltd., Bombay Vs. I.T.C. Limited, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad253
ORDERAbdul, Hadi, J.1. These two appeals, O.S.A. Nos. 134 of 1990 and 135 of 1990 by the defendant, (who is common in both suits) arise out of the common order dated 24-7-1990 in two interlocutory applications in two different suits. The suits are respectively C. S. No. 478 of 1990 and C. S. No. 477 of 1990 and the respective applications are Application No. 2557 of 1990 and Application No. 2554 of1990. For convenience sake parties are referred to by their ranks in the suit.Both the defendant-appellant and the plaintiff respondent are well established cigarette manufacturers and both these suits are trade mark actions for infringement and passing off. While C. S. No. 477 of 1990 is with reference to plain cigarettes, C. S. No. 478 of 1990 is with reference to filter cigarettes. The infringement and passing off, alleged in both the suits are with reference to what the plaintiff calls as a 'slightly' modified forms of the plaintiff's registered trade mark T. M. No. 110438 dated 21-5-1945...
Rajeswar, (Accused) Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ661
1. The appellant is accused in S.T.C. No. 16 of 1986 on the file of the Special Judge (Under E.C. Act), Madurai. 2. The accused was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under S. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for refraction or violation of each of the provisions as adumbrated under Clauses 3(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1977 (for short 'the Order'). The appellant is stated to have remitted the fine amount. 3. Accused is the proprietor of a provision store under the name and style of 'NEW WELCOME STORE' at No. 22/4 Main Road, Anna Nagar, Madurai. On 18-12-1986 between 16-30 and 17-30 hours, P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D. Madurai inspected that shop along with other police personnel. At that time, accused was transac...
Abdul Rahim Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ370
ORDER1. This petition for quashing the proceedings in GC. No. 386 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrates No. 1, Madurai, has been filed by the petitioner. The charge against him is that he obtained a loan from the complainant. Tawrus Hire Purchase Private Limited, Madurai, on a hire purchase agreement in respect of Ambassador Car TDZ 8964 purchased by him on 23-9-1986. As per the Hire Purchase agreement the loan amount was Rs. 1,08,000/-. The petitioner has repaid a sum of Rs. 35,582/- as per his affidavit. He was regularly paying the hire purchase amount of Rs. 72418/-. The petitioner informed the theft of the said car to the complainant on 5-4-1987 by a telegram and the complainant is fully aware of the theft of the said car and a case was registered in D-6 Anna Square Police Station. In spite of it, the complainant has filed a report before the respondent for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. and the police has registered a case in Cr. No. 27/87. As per the F.I.R...
The Secretary to Government, Transport Department and anr. Vs. N. Mari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ402
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The only question which this writ appeal raises is, whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the penalty awarded by the Competent Authority after a domestic enquiry is held and misconduct established, only on the ground that it is disproportionate to the misconduct proved? To answer the question, a brief note of the facts would be necessary.2. The respondent was employed as a foundry worker in the Government Press. On a charge of stealing mono-metal weighing about 540 grams he was proceeded against departmentally. Acriminal case was also registered against him and he was prosecuted in C.C. No. 18991 of 1979 before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.3. In the domestic enquiry the respondent was charge-sheeted and was asked to submit his explanation. He submitted no explanation. The Assistant Works Manager, Government Press, held an enquiry. The respondent apparently did not extend...
D. Soundararajan Vs. B.S. Gopalakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ166
Bellie, J.1. The 10th defendant is the appellant.2. The facts of the case are : The plaintiff who obtained a money decree against one Guruswamy and Venkatesan in O.S. No. 18 of 1972 on the file of the District Court Dharmapuri, in execution thereof, attached the whole of the suit properties and brought them to sale in E.P. No. 13 of 1974. While so, defendants 1 to 9 filed O.S. No. 64of 1974 and got a declaration that they had title to 2/3rd share in the property and that suit was decreed. The before, in E.P. No. 44 of 1974 the plaintiff reattached 1/3rd share alone as belonging to the judgment-debtors and he himself purchased it in court-auction held on 20.4.1977. While one of the judgment-debtors, viz., Venkatesan filed I.P. No. 5 of 1974 on 20.6.1974 and was adjudged as insolvent on 23.7.1975. In the insolvency proceedings the 10th defendant purchased 1/12th share of Venkatesan in item 2 of the suit properties on 31.1.1977.3. Now the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of 1/3rd sh...
M/S. Raja theatre, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Selvam Financiers and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad227; (1991)IMLJ346
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The second respondent-garnishee in I.A. No. 1167 of 1980 in O.P. No. 1453 of 1980 on the file of theSub-Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The petitioner in the said I.A. No. 1167 of 1980 is the first respondent in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The first respondent in the said application is the second respondent in this civil miscellaneous appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their array in the Interlocutary Application.2. The petitioner filed the application I.A. No. 1167 of 1980 in O.S. No. 1453 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore under O. 38, Rr. 5 and 11(a) read with O. 21, R. 49 and O.40 R.1 and S. 151, C.P.C., to call upon the first respondent to furnish sufficient security, failing which to order attachment before judgment of the share, interest, profit, credit and deposits to him in the partnership firm M/s. Raja Theatre at Coimbatore. The case of th...
T. Rajaiah and ors. Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. (Represented by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ719Mad; (1991)IIMLJ72
S.T. Ramalingam, J. 1. In this batch of 28 civil revision petitions, the employees of respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners. Individually they have filed 28 suits on the file of the District Munsif, Tirumangalam, questioning their transfer from the places where they were working to some other place, allegedly, with mala fide intention by the respondents, and not for any administrative reasons. Along with the suits, they have filed inter-locutory applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for an ad interim injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from giving effect to the orders of transfer pending disposal of the suits. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their written statement in the suits as well as counter in the interlocutory applications. 3. The learned District Munsif dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On appeal, the order and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed by the Principal District Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »