Chennai Court September 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.
S. Bose Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Housing and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ578
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent dated 11.10.1990 by which the order of cancellation was passed in Anna Nagar Scheme.2. Plot No. 3623-G-ll measuring about one ground and 900 sq.ft. which was originally earmarked for the service industries in the lay-out was allotted to the petitioner herein by the first respondent State by its order in G.O.Ms.No.1904 dated 14.12.1987. Based upon the said order, allotment was made to the petitioner on 11.4.1988 on payment of 1/3rd cost of the plot on 7.4.1988 by the petitioner. The said plot was handed over to the petitioner on 22.4.1988 and he executed the lease cum sale agreement on 23.4.1988. At this stage, by order dated 13.11.1989 the second respondent cancelled the allotment of the petitioner and it was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15779 of 1989 and this court by order dated 28.11.1989 allowed the said writ petition giving liberty to the second respondent to dispose of the matter ...
Dhanasekaran Vs. Manoranjithammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad214; (1992)IIMLJ116
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. This appeal has been posted before us on being referred to by Bellie, J., since the view he is taking on the question involved in the appeal is in conflict with the view taken by Ratnam, J., in his decision reported in Pattayi Padayachi v. Subbaraya Padayachi : (1980)2MLJ296 .2. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 296 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore praying for setting aside the sale under Ex. B.4 dated 2-8-1961, effected by his mother when he was a minor, in so far as his 3/4th share therein is concerned and for partition and separate possession of the said share. The question to be answered is whether the said sale is hit by S. 8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 since admittedly the plaintiff's mother did not obtain the previous permission from the Court as contemplated in the said Section, and consequently whether the plaintiff could avoid the said sale with reference to his above said 3/4th sh...
K.P. Zainulabdeen and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Madras and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad298
ORDER1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the orders of the first respondent in W.A. No. 10/B. 7/72/Try dated 23-12-1982.2. Philanthropist by name Janab Khader Mohideen alies Chinnatha Rowther of Aravakurichi, Karur Taluk, Trichy District said to have created a wakf deed dated 5-9-1919 dedicating certain properties and cash of Rs. 1,500/- for the following objects: --'(1) To run the Madrasa, Madrasathul Muhammedia established by the founder of the Wakf in 1903. (2) To provide books 10 the poor students of the said Madrasa. (3) To provide for the funeral expenses of the poor. (4) To provide for the expenses of Haj Pilgrims. (5) To provide for the marriage expenses of poor girls. (6) To provide for the Ramzan Musafirs. (7) To provide for recitation of moulood and for feeding miskeens (poor) during the Muharram, Rabiul Avval, Rabiul Akir, Jamathul Akhir and Rajab months.'According to the wakf deed, it appears that the founde...
Abraham Taliat Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR891(Mad)
Govindasamy, J.1. The petitioner was holding about 3,000 rubber trees in Carmelyn Rubber Estate comprised in Survey No. 34/1 of Kalial Village in Vilavancode Taluk. The petitioner, by an agreement dated August 19, 1981, entered into with one Mrs. Lilly Abraham, daughter of P. T. Abraham, residing at Kalial Village, Vilavancode Taluk, agreed to sell the three thousand rubber trees to be cut and removed with a view to replant the above area with rubber. The said Mrs. Lilly Abraham agreed to purchase the said 3,000 rubber trees earmarked by the petitioner and identified by the said Mrs. Lily Abraham at the rate of Rs. 142 per tree, in all aggregating to Rs. 4,26,000, of which the said Mrs. Lilly Abraham paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000 on March 23, 1981, and also agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 3,26,000 as entered into in the agreement and that the purchaser shall cut and remove the rubber trees in proportion to the amounts paid under the purchase price. The said agreement was said to be ...
Premier Paper Products Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT15(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of converting duty-paid poster paper into wax coating paper. They are assessees under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). They had been paying the duties as demanded by the respondents at the time of removal of the wax-coated papers. According to the petitioners the only work done by them is to coat duty-paid poster paper with paraffin wax on either side. Therefore the duty-paid poster paper continued to be used and there was no manufacturing process in the conversion as above. However, they had paid duty under mistake of law. It is now well-settled as it would be seen from Kwality Coated Products v. Government of India [1980 (6) E.L.T. 579] that such coating of duty-paid paper would not attract excise duty. The Notification No. 184/76-C. E., dated 27-5-1976 issued by the Government of India was held to be illegal and was quashed. 2. In view of the law as declared by this court, the petitioners filed...
Ajantha Biscuit Co. and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC202
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. Accused 1 to 3 in C.C. 46 of 1989 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.2. The Second petitioner had died after the filing of the petition.The respondent had filed the complaint against petitioners 1 to 3 and M/s. Nellai Confectionary, arraying them as accused 1 to 4. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:3. Accused 1 and 4 are partnership firms.. The second accused is the partner of first accused firm. The third accused is the Manager of first accused firm. The third accused is also partner of fourth accused firm. Accused two and three were responsible for conducting the affairs of the first accused firm. The third accused is the partner of fourth accused firm and is responsible for conducting the affairs of fourth accused. Biscuits are subject to levy of Central Excise Duty and were classifie...
Sri Srinivasa Multiple Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC110
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner is the same in all the four writ petitions and it is a partnership firm. They imported the following consignments of steel strips:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Bill of Entry No. Date Name of Ship Value---------------------------------------------------------------------------Rs.1. C 33 03.04.1981 Elena Spsova 3,60,9002. C 633 19.11.1981 Indian Ventrure 82,6293. C 177 07.01.1982 Vishva Jyothi 5,35,703-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The Assistant Collector assessed the goods under 73.13 of the Customs Tariff Act as if the goods were sheets and levied a duty of 40% plus 10% auxiliary duty. The correct duty payable is only under tariff item 73.12 because the goods were only strips and by virtue of notification No. 107/77-Cus, dated 1.7.1977, only the concessional rate of duty of 30% was chargeable as basic customs duty. The petitioners therefore claimed th...
Leo Candles Represented by Its Proprietor, Trichy Vs. the Industries C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ12
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant a quota of 35 bags (50 kgs. each) of Standard Grade Paraffin Wax (Type II), per month along with the arrears of wax from January, 1990.2. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of candles out of paraffin wax. It seems that industry was started in 1983. The quota for the petitioner industry was 35 bags of paraffin wax per month. In 1989 November, an inspection seems to have been made by the Joint Director of Chemicals and based on that, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.12.1989 directing him to show cause why the quota of 35 bags of wax should not be cancelled. It was received by the petitioner on 8.1.1990. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was using the entire wax allotted for the purpose of manufacturing candles and had sold them to various persons as found in the records maintained by the ...
R. Rajasekaran Vs. University of Madras and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1993Mad34
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2474 of 1985 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we should refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner came to this Court by way of the writ petition projecting the following prayer :'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ ofdeclaration or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ declaring the resolution of the Syndicate of Madras University dated 28-6-84 scrapping the scheme of revaluation with effect from 1-7-84 as null and void and pass such other further orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.'The petitioner at the relevant point of time was a student in law. Having successfully completed the first year of the course, he came t...
Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras Vs. Second Addl. Labour Court, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ128Mad; (1992)IMLJ263
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ appeals, though they are coming up for admission, since we find representation for the respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the parties made their submissions comprehensively on merits, we are proceeding to dispose of the writ appeals on merits. 2. These are seven writ appeals and they are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 8007 to 8013 of 1988. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in these writ appeals. The second respondent in each of the writ petitions is the second respondent in each of the respective writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. 3. On April 10, 1985 there was a settlement between the petitioner and its workmen represented by their union under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as Act, 1947, and the terms of the settlement are only three ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »