Chennai Court April 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.
Modern Steel Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT220(Mad)
1. Admit. Mr. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice. 2. In and by the order dated 25-8-1989, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, states that the petitioner had erroneously availed of the benefit of Notification No. 208 of 1983 and after giving a show cause notice, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,92,201.57 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent-Tribunal. Pending orders on the said appeal, the 4th respondent-Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pollachi Division, by order dated 7-2-1991 detained all the excisable goods, all materials and preparations in the plant as well as the machineries, vessels etc., in accordance with Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This writ petition is against the said order of the 4th respondent dated 7-2-1991. 3. After the filing of this writ petition, the second respondent-Tribunal has passed ...
S.B. Steel Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT224(Mad)
1. Admit. Mr. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice. 2. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore (third respondent) passed an order on 21-11-1989 holding that the petitioner had wrongly utilised the Notification No. 208/83 and after notice to the petitioner, he held that a sum of Rs. 2,99,502.94 is payable by him as duty and he also levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent-Tribunal and by order dated 8-10-1990, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as a condition for waiving the pre-deposit of the balance amount. The petitioner did not comply with the order before the prescribed date, namely 31-12-1990 and hence, the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise has informed the petitioner by his letter dated 14-3-1991 that if the duty amount as per the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 21-11-1989 i...
Lakshmi Machine Work Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1991LC476(Madras); 1992(57)ELT211(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public limited company at Coimbatore. They have their factories in the Coimbatore District and they manufacture textile machineries. The machineries are manufactured according to precise specification and designs of their customers. In other words, the machineries are manufactured to suit the individual customer's need and requirements. If a particular customer does not take delivery of the finished goods, the petitioners will be prejudiced and they will have considerable difficulty in disposing of such machines. With a view to avoid such contingencies, it is stated that the petitioners take advance security deposits from the customers. Normally, the amount of security deposited is 10% of the value of orders. It is also contended by the petitioner that the widespread practice in the industry manufacturing tailor-made machineries to observe certain norms and conditions. They are as follows :- (A) For the buyer not to pay interest (i) on the retention money o...
Little Brothers of the Oppressed Vs. the Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC318
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. According to the petitioner, the activities of the society are secular and its objects are to help, encourage and educate the socially, economically and culturally oppressed by convening conference and to make them aware of their legal rights and liberties and their responsibilities under the Constitution. The other objects of this society are to organize educational and health programmes and for this purpose the society gives education through village organisations including night classes for Harijan children and by conducting health programmes. With the above objects and purposes the petitioner-society runs 82 night classes in 36 harijan colonies in North Arcot District. The petitioner society is also running two tailoring centres. The petitioner-society was formed in the year 1981 and from the inception the petitioner-society is receiving contrib...
India Forge and Drop Stampings Employees Union, Represented by Its Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ157
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 15 of 1991. That contempt application has got a sphere of factual data behind it. The 5th respondent, hereinafter referred to as the management, is the petitioner in W.P. No. 618 of 1990 with which alone we are concerned herein. That writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 23 of 1984 in so far as it directed reinstatement of the workmen. Pending the writ petition, when stay was asked for by the management, the learned single Judge of this Court directed payment to the workmen full wages last drawn by them under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of the learned single Judge has been confirmed by a Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) had been a party. Since there was non-compliance with the orders with regard to payme...
S.A. Kuppammal Vs. Parthasarathy @ Govindaswamy (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad61; (1991)IIMLJ106
ORDER1. The above revision petitions are dealt with in common, since they concern a common property and have been dealt with at all relevant points of time in common.2. The petitioner herein has filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 6070 and 6071 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, O.S. No. 6070 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Pandurangan) was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 430/- towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for future damages. O.S. No. 6071 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Parthasarathy alias Govindasamy) was atenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery of Rs. 430/- being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery of future damages at Re. 1/- per day from 1-6-1971. It is not necessary at this stage to dwell into...
A.V. Ponniah and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC390(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. This is an assessee's appeal against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in a suo motu revision of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The controversy in this appeal relates to the purchases of dried plantain barks for Rs. 46,341 by the dealer from non-assessees in circumstances in which no tax was payable under section 3, 4 or 5 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and which material was utilised by the dealer for packing snuff. The assessing authority considered the turnover of Rs. 46,341 as liable to purchase tax under section 7-A of the Act. The dealer preferred an appeal against the order of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the question of the assessment under section 7-A on the purchase turnover of dried plantain bark, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment. In exercise of ...
S.A. Kuppammal Vs. Parthasarathy @ Govindaswamy (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ106
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above revision petitions are dealt with in common, since they concern a common property and have been dealt with at all relevant points of time in common.2. The petitioner herein has filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 6070 and 6071 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, O.S. No. 6070 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Pandurangan) was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 430 towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for future damages. O.S. No. 6071 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Parthasarathy alias Govindasamy) was a tenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery of Rs. 430 being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery of future damages at Re. 1 per day from 1.6.1971. It is not necessary at this stage to ...
N. Sabapathy and ors. Vs. Pattammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ187
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 8 in O.S.No.253 of 1979 are the appellants in this second appeal. Defendants 6 to 8 are alienees under defendants 1 and 2. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for partition and separate possession of a one-ninth share in the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed a share in the estate of one Arumugam, in the joint family properties. There were four brothers-Rathinam, Narayanaswamy, Murugaiya and Arumugam. The plaintiff is the daughter ofRathinam. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Narayanaswamy. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of Murugaiya. Rathinam died in August, 1962. Narayanaswamy died in 1957. Murugaiya died in 1968. With regard to Arumugam, all the parties have a common case and that is, he was not heard of from 1958 for over seven years and hence he must be presumed to be dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly Rathinam g...
Murugan Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad307
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1953, on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. Defenndants 1, 4, 9 and 10 in the suit are the respondents in this Second Appeal. In view of the limited scope of the controversy that requires resolution in the Second Appeal, there is no need to traverse upon the detailed facts of the case. Suffice it to state, the suit is one for partition and the preliminary decree; the subject matter of final decree application; is one passed by the District Court, Tirunelveli in A.S. No. 166 of 1954 on 22-11-1954, and that has been confirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 210 of 1955 on 19-9-1957. When the plaintiff took out I.A. No. 749 of 1977 to pass a final decree for partition in terms of the preliminary decree, a question of limitation was raised by the defendants and that has been countenanced by the two Courts below. Thus faced with an order of dismissal of the final decree application, the plaintiff has come befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »