Chennai Court June 1991 Judgments
TuticorIn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC348; 1991(56)ELT295(Mad)
1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to forbear from proceeding to levy or recover duty under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, on the slurry occurring in the course of manufacture of soda as in the continuous process employed by the petitioners.2. The occasion for the filing of the writ petition appears to be the show cause notice issued on 6-5-1988 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticorin Range, calling upon the petitioners to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin as to why the duty amount of Rs. 7,79,36,583.58 Ps. (DED Rs. 7,55,61,319.00 + SED Rs. 23,75,264.38) should not be demanded from them under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rules 210 and 713 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The learned counsel for the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Ponnuswamy Mudaliar Vs. S.K. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ210
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has allowed an application for revocation of the probate in O.P. No. 15 of 1982 granted in favour of the appellant. Hence the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court.2. One S.T. Subbaraya Mudaliar who died on 23rd August, 1978, executed a will with respect to his properties including a property at MallanPonnappa Mudali Street, Triplicane in the city of Madras. This property, according to the respondent herein, belonged to one Sundara Mudaliar who had four sons, ManickaMudaliar, Thangavelu Mudaliar, Kuppuswamy Mudaliar, Kamatchi Mudaliar. Manicka Mudaliar died leaving behind his only son Loganatha Mudaliar. Thangavelu Mudaliar died leaving behind Doraisami Mudaliar. Kuppuswami Mudaliar died leaving the respondent herein and Kamatchi Mudaliar died without any issues.3. Loganatha Mudaliar died leaving his only son Arumugha Mudaliar. Arumugha Mudaliar filed a suit for partition of his share in the joint family property. I...
Tag this Judgment!Seemairaj and Others Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ844
ORDER1. Petition under S. 167(2)(a)(ii) and under S. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for bail. 2. For possession of 30 kilograms of ganja which is an offence punishable under S. 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner was arrested on 3-4-91. Since then he is in jail. More than 60 days have passed and till now complaint has not been filed. Hence the petitioner prays that he should be released under S. 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Mr. T. Sudanthiram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were arrested on 3-4-91 for offence punishable under S. 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act for alleged possession of 30 kilograms of ganja that more then 60 days have passed and charge-sheet was not yet laid and hence under S. 167(2)(a)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners are entitled to bail. 4. Per contra, Mr. M. P. Rajamanickam, the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that petitioners have no absolute right to get bail under S. 167(2)(a)(ii) Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!P. Srinivasan Vs. Suseelabai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ169
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the appellate Court, has filed this appeal. The suit is for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. The case set out in the plaint is as follows : The suit property and other properties belonged to one Ramachandra Naidu and others. They executed a promissory note for Rs. 400 on 11.11.1959 in favour of one Doraisamy Naidu, who filed O.S. No. 437 of 1961 for recovery of the amount due. A decree was passed in that suit and in execution thereof, the suit property and other properties were attached. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of the decree and brought the properties to sale on 22.8.1962. He was the successful bidder and after the confirmation of the sale, he got delivery of the properties on 8.1.1963. After the plaintiff took delivery, he was in enjoyment. But, the crops that were in the land at the time of delivery were harvested by the defendants without informing the plaintiff. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Central Public Works Department represented by Its Chief Engineer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ260
Mishra, J.1. W.A. No. 548 of 1990 by the Union of India, W.A. No. 648 of 1990 by the madras Metropolitan Development Authority and W.A. No. 554 of 1990 by the Contractors who had been entrusted with the execution of the work of construction of an Office Complex for the Public Works Department of the Central Government, are directed against the order in W.P. No. 5678 of 1989 filed by the first respondent in all these appeals, viz., Besant Nagar Residents Forum represented by its Secretary, who incidentally also has preferred W.A. No. 1007 of 1990 against the same very order. Moving this Court for a writ of certiorari and a consequential mandamus for quashing Notification No. VI(1)/951/88(D2(R)10070/87) dated 17.10.1988 and praying to restrain the respondents from proceeding with any construction of any Office Complex in a piece of land measuring about 7 acres comprised in S. Nos. 46 (part), 47 and 49 of Uroor village, Besant Nagar, the Writ Petitioner (first respondent) alleged that Bes...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Bai Vs. Arti Press
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas750(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 46 of 1990, pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by the Act 66 of 1988, on a complaint given by the respondent herein, invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that, for liabilities arising out of supply of pictorial calendars by the respondent to Surya Advertising P. Ltd., whose sister concern is Mudra Graphic P. Ltd., the petitioner being the managing director of both the concerns, representing that funds in Surya Advertising P. Ltd. were not sufficient and that there was sufficient funds in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd., issued a cheque for Rs. 20,000 in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. account. 3. The cheque when presented by the respondent through the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Sivakasi, was returned unpaid for want of fun...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shanmugha Sundaram Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ582
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein, the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madras 34, to entrust to the Mahathejo Mandala Sabha, the third respondent herein, the performance of all the religious and spiritual rituals of Sri Pamban Kumara Gurudasa Swamigal Samadhi at Thiruvanmiyur Madras 41 in accordance with the sacred and pious wishes of Sri Pamban Kumaragurudas Swamigal in his last will and testament dated 17.7.1926....2. The petitioner is a follower and devotee of Srimath Kumara Gurudasa Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as 'Swamigal') and the Swamigal was an inspired baktha of Lord Muruga and had contributed the celebrated 'Shanmugha Kavasam', 'Panchamirtha Vannam', 'Kumarasthavam' and also had composed more than 6,666 compositions. It seems that Swamigal was a legend, sain...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G. Elango Vs. Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ793Mad
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been field for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in his Memo No. PI/613/84/H dated November 15, 1984 and consequently direct the respondents to act upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar which has been already produced by the petitioner. 2. It is unnecessary at this stage to deal with the various factual claims in the affidavit for adjudicating the issue involved before me. The respondents have ripped a counter affidavit and the stand taken therein is, that there is nothing wrong in the employer calling upon the petitioner to produce a community certificate from a Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in S. P. Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, Salem, etc. 98. L.W. 104 categorically held that the order of the State Government obliging the production of a community certificate in respect of certain...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mahadevan Pillai Vs. Smt. Vedavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad183; [1994]79CompCas851(Mad); (1991)IIMLJ394
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is on a promissory note dated 19-9-1972 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5000/-According to the plaintiff, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- and made an endorsement on 15-3-1975. It is stated in the plaint that while making the endorsement, the defendant added the words 'for Devi Talkies (P) Ltd', above his signature and the words 'Managing Director' below the same. It is stated that the plaintiff did not notice the mistake immediately and as the endorsement was made by the defendant himself, he was personally bound. The suit was filed on 15-3-1978.2. The defendant stated as follows in the written statement : The defendant was the Managing Director of M/s. Devi Talkies (P)Ltd., which owned a cinema theatre called Devi Talkies. The previous Managing Director filed a suit against the company and the Board of Directors for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his management. The suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!G.S.R. Krishnamurthi Vs. M. Govindaswamy, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Mad)143; [1992]195ITR137(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Thiru G. S. R. Krishnamurthi (the petitioner herein) is accused No. 1 in E. O. C. C. No. 302 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras-600 008. 2. He is the Karta of the undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, Thirumathi C. Indira (accused No. 2), and children born of her, residing at No. 36, Neelakantha Metha Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Madras 600 017. His brother is Thiru G. Adhiseshagiri Rao (accused No. 3). 3. He, in his capacity as the karta of the undivided family, purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 3 acres 24.5 cents in Saligramam, boarding Madras City, from Thiru A. K. Velan, his wife, Thirumathi A. K. V. Jayalakshmi and his sons, Thiru A. K. V. Vignani, Thiru A. K. V. Sivagnani and Thiru A. K. V. Kalaignani (accused Nos. 4 to 8), as per the deed registered on May 24, 1982 as document No. 2788 of 1982, before the Sub-registrar, Kodambakkam, for an apparent and rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »