Chennai Court July 1991 Judgments
thermo Electric Madras Manufacturing Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT577(Mad)
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein to recalculate the demand of duty as against the petitioner herein in pursuance of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in Order No. E/788/90-D, dated 20-09-1990 [reported in 1991 (54) ELT 82 (Tri.)], and to grant refund of excise duty and to further direct the respondents to pay interest thereon at 18% from the date collection till the date of actual payment. The petitioner having got an order in its favour from the CEGAT dated 20-09-1990 is before me with the abovesaid prayer.2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 10-07-1991 and Mr. Jayachandran appears for the respondents.3. After hearing Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner, I find, the Tribunal passed an order on 20-09-1990 and the petitioner has also claimed refund on 15-02-1991 of certain amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The operative portion of the order of the T...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikamal Paints Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC109
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. After hearing Mr. Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayahandaran, who has taken notice on behalf of the Department, I am of the view that the impugned order has got to be set aside on the ground that the respondent has not correctly applied the term 'undue hardship' which occurs in the proviso to Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. From the narration made in para 10 of the affidavit it is clear that the capital itself comes to only about Rs. 6,00,000/- by March, 1990 and to ask such a Small Scale Industry to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-, as pre-deposit, I am of the view, surely, there will be undue hardship on the part of the petitioner. Learned Counsel referred to an order of the Supreme Court in an Application No. 332 of 1984 in appeal No. 693 of 1984 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression 'undue hardship' as provided by Act 1944 would include consideration inter alia the aspect of liquidity possessed by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi and Co. and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer (Hqrs.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR553(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 in E.O.C.C. Nos. 247 to 257 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (H. C. I.), Egmore, Madras, have filed these petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid cases and quash the same.2. In E. O. C. C. No. 247 of 1988, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct income-tax at source from the interest paid to the creditors under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the financial year ended on March 31, 1983. The allegations in it are briefly as follows :The Commissioner of Income-tax has authorised under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the preferring of this complaint for theoffences under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The first accused is a regis...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sabson (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad282; (1991)IIMLJ211
ORDER1. O.P. NO. 531 of 1987 was filed by Sabson (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore against Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Mr. Justice V. V. Raghavan and Mr. M. G. Balasubramaniam (arbitrators) under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to direct the arbitrators (respondents 2 and 3 above,) to file the award in this court and for passing a decree in terms of the award in favour of the petitioner with interest and costs.2. The matter relates to the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner M/s. Sabson (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and Neyveli Liginite Corporation regarding certain disputes arising out of the agreement No. CE/TS/II/Civil/24/81-82 for the work of supplying, fabricating and erecting large diameter pipes for their circulating water system Group C for Second Thermal Power Station at Neyveli. Clause 84 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for arbi-tration which reads as follows:'Any dispute or difference at any time arising between the parties as to the...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gnanadurai Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas243(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The second accused in C.C. No. 999 of 1988 and C.C. No. 1000 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras, has filed these two petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the aforesaid C.C. No. 999 of 1988 and C.C. No. 1000 of 1988 and quash the same. 2. In C.C. No. 999 of 1988, the respondent has filed the complaint against Ramamurthy Metal Decorating Industries Ltd., the petitioner herein, Subash Chandra Bose and Ramamurthy arraying them as accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The first accused was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is represented by accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are directors of the company, according to the particulars filed in the office of the complainant. According to section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, the company and its directors are under a s...
Tag this Judgment!Sabson (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ211
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. O.P. No. 531 of 1987 was filed by Sabson (India) Pvt. Limited, Bangalore against Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Mr. Justice V.V. Raghavan and Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniam (arbitrators) under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to direct the arbitrators (respondents 2 and 3 above) to file the award in this Court and for passing a decree in terms of the award in favour of the petitioner with interest and costs.2. The matter relates to the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner M/s. Sabson (India) Pvt. Limited, Bangalore and Neyveli Lignite Corporation regarding certain disputes arising out of the agreement No. CE/TS/II/Civil/24/81-82 for the work of supplying, fabricating and erecting large diameter pipes for their circulating water system Group C for Second Thermal Power Station at Neyveli. Clause 84 of the General Conditions of contract provides for arbitration which reads as follows:Any dispute or difference at any time arising between the par...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswami (Died) and anr. Vs. Vedanayagam Pillai Represented by Nex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ15
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision arises out of the order passed in I.ANo.2075 of 1986 in I.ANo.1404 of 1982 in O.S. No.11 of 1973. The suit O.S. No. 11 of 1973 was dismissed for default. I.A.No.1404 of 1982 was filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C., to restore the suit. That application was also dismissed for default. Hence I.A.No.1404 of 1982. This application was also dismissed for default. In the order passed in I.ANo.2075 of 1986 dated 25.8.1987 it is stated as under:Petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 151, C.P.C., to restore the I.A.No.1404 of 1982 which was dismissed for default on 2.12.1986 Counter not filed. The petitioner and the petitioner's counsel called absent at 10.30 am. The Petition is dismissed for default.2. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that Application No. 2075 of 1986 was filed with an affidavit disclosing all the mate...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Karur Municipality, Karur Vs. Narayan Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4002
1. This appeal by the complainant the Commissioner, Karur Municipality, is directed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. I, Karur in S.T.C. 915/86 tried for an offence under S. 216(3) read with S. 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. (the Act for short). 2. The case of the prosecution as is seen from the evidence of P.W. 1, the Town Planning Inspector is as follows : On 24-10-85, he inspected the building in B. No. 935 in Jawahar Mansion, Karur, belonging to the respondent and found that the respondent had commenced construction of an underground cellar 6 metres long and 3 metres broad, by digging the foundation, levelling up by putting up R.C.C. Pillars. No permission of the Municipality had been obtained for the construction of the above underground cellar and hence he submitted Ex. P. 1 report to the appellant. A notice Ex. P. 2 under S. 216(1) and (2) of the Act was issued to the respondent informing him about the co...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinam and ors. Vs. Pavathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ323
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred under the following circumstances:The respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 232 of 1990, on the file of the Court of District Judge, Nilgiris at Ootacamund on 8.10.1990. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in two suit items. Simultaneously, the respondent also filed I.A. No. 703 of 1990 for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein or any person claiming under them from interfering with the respondent's joint possession of the suit properties and from alienating the same or any portions thereof to any third parties pending disposal of the suit. The respondent was successful in getting an ex parte interim injunction. The order granting interim injunction simply reads : 'Heard. Interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from alienating the entire suit property...', and the matter wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Vanitha Vs. Babu Royan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ231
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the mother of the two minors, viz., 1. Merlin Diana and 2. Maria Roshan and the wife of the respondent, Babu Royan. She filed this petition under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing herself as guardian of the two minors aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively and direct entrustment of the custody of the two minors to her from the respondent.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is employed as Administrative Manager, Iggi Resorts International Private Limited, Century Plaza, Mount Road, Madras-18 and the respondent who was employed as Manager in Sakthi Finance, Shastri Nagar, Madras-20 is now working in the said company at their Coimbatore branch on transfer. He is working in the said company for the last few months.3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 23.1.1984 at Coimbatore and they are governed by the Special Marriage Act, being Christians. The two chil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »