Chennai Court January 1992 Judgments
State by Food Inspector Kumbakonam Municipality and Others Vs. Chandra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2200
1. Since both these State Appeals involved a common question of law, they are disposed of together under this common judgment. 2. The State has filed these appeals challenging the acquittal of the accused in each of the cases, tried for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. C.A. No. 207 of 1984 challenges the acquittal of the respondent therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in C.A. No. 53/82 of an offence u/Ss. 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 2(1a)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the allegation being the sample of mixed-milk taken from the respondent by the Food Inspector on 8-1-1982, was found to be deficient in solids not fat to the extent of 14% C.A. No. 400 of 1984 challenges the acquittal of the respondent therein by the same Magistrate in S.T.C. No. 279 of 1982 of the same offence, tried on the allegation that the sample of mixed-milk taken by the Food Inspector on 22-7-1982, was found to be deficient in solid...
Tag this Judgment!Moorco (India) Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR157]; (1994)IILLJ111Mad; (1993)IMLJ51
Nainar Sundaram, Actg, C.J. 1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5497 of 1990 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.2. The petitioner came to this Court by way of the writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to forward his award dated June 30, 1988 to the first respondent for the purpose of publication as contemplated by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Certain broad proceeding factual features must stand delineated for the purpose of appreciating the scope of the prayer projected in the writ petition. There was a settlement on January 27, 1988 under Section 12(3) of the act between the petitioner and its workmen. Term No. 3 of the settlement read as follows:-'The Deputy Commissioner of Labour shall examine the eligibility f...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ551
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an award of the Principal Labour Court, Madras passed in I.D. N6.11 of 1990, dated 31.5.1991. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are:The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he was appointed as Sub Editor on 15.2.1982 under the second respondent management of a popular Tamil Daily 'Dina Malar' and that he was allowed to sign the daily attendance register of Proof Reading Section of the second respondent. It seems the petitioner herein is an M.A. Degree-holder and has passed two years course of Diploma in Journalism and he paid a sum of Rs. 500 to the second respondent management as security deposit and a receipt therefore was given to him. It seems the petitioner was not allowed to enter into the office of the second respondent management on 15.10.1982 and. on 19.10.1982 the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice to the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) of the Industria...
Tag this Judgment!Annammal Vs. R. Narasimhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ22
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Registrar of Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 60 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, for discharging a distress warrant dated 13.9.1991 issued on an application filed by the respondent herein in Distress Application No. 113 of 1991. The necessary facts for deciding this revision petition are as follows:2. The petitioner and the respondent entered in to an agreement on 25.2.1982 under which the respondent agreed to sell a flat allotted to him by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and situated in the First Floor in 5th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras-40, Under that agreement, the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 as sale consideration and paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 by way of advance. The agreement fixed the time for payment of the balance in stages. Under Clause (11) of the Agreement it is provided that till the date of execution o...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Jahan Vs. Pappireddipatty Town Panchayat, Represented by Its Exec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ590
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.437 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Harur. The said suit is for injunction restraining the respondent-Town Panchayat from levying or collecting property-tax for door No. l0/48-A and for injunction restraining the said Panchayat from collecting property tax for Door No. 10/48 in excess of Rs. 77-40 per year. An ex parte decree as prayed for was passed in the said suit on 11.6.1987 and there was a delay of 721 days in the defendant-panchayat filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. Hence I.A.No.425 of 1989 was filed by the said Panchayat to excuse the said delay, The said LA. was allowed by the court below by order dated 5.4.1991 and against the said order this civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no sufficient grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 721 days. The ground alleged in the a...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Chem Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT24(Mad)
ORDERMishra, J. 1. Since we propose to refer the case to a larger Bench, we do not advert to the controversies in detail. We record however that although the writ petitions and the appeals were directed against notices under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the appellant confined the controversy to a limited question whether a person under notice for enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act can seek assistance of a counsel and thus at the time of his interrogation be assisted by a counsel of his choice 2. This Court more than once but specifically in Anil G. Merchant v. The Director of Revenue Intelligence : 1985(20)ELT292(Mad) ] has said that there is no fundamental right of a person who is summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act to give evidence or to answer queries to have the presence of a lawyer of his choice during examination or interrogation. The Court, however, has said, 'However, it is advisable for the department to premit...
Tag this Judgment!Sendamarai Kannan and ors. Vs. Vinayakam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ104
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:The property belonged to one Mannadha Pillai, whose sons were Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan. After the death of Mannadha Pillai, they sold it to Veeraswami on 12.5.1892, who is turn sold it to his daughter Kanakavalli, who happened to be the wife of Mannadha Pillai, on 15.10.1901. After Kanakavalli's death, her legal heirs were her daughters Thayammal, Ponnukannu and Swarnathammal. The last daughter died issueless. The property thus belonged to Thayammal and Ponnukannu. Thayammal's grand daughters are Alamelu and Narayani, while Ponnukannu's daughters are Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Janaki Ammal sold her 1/4th share to Nachammal alias Andal on 5.2.1968. There was a suit for partition in O.S. No. 125 of 1969 filed by Alamelu Ammal and Narayani Ammal against Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. It was decreed and the eastern half was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Animal. Kup-pamma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Lines Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR106(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this court, for its opinion : '(1) Whether Rs. 53,410 paid at foreign ports is deductible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the computation of business income (2) Whether Rs. 53,410 paid at foreign ports can be disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the business income (3) Whether in working out the capital employed in a ship, the amounts owed by the assessee as on the computation date on account of monies borrowed or debts incurred in acquiring that ship can be deducted from the written down value (4) Whether the sum of Rs. 24,82,000 taken from the Shipping Development Fund Committee is money borrowed or debt incurred in acquiring the ship ?' 2. The assessee is a resident company carrying on business in operating cargo...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Anbarasan Factory Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT195(Mad)
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions, the prayer is for refund of the amount in view of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 'Special Bench-A', New Delhi, setting aside the orders passed by the lower authority on the ground that the petitioners are not manufacturers. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India : [1989]179ITR317a(SC) . The Tribunal has passed the order on 11-12-1990. In spite of many requests, refund has not been made by the respondents and as such the petitioners are now before me. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 17-12-1991. Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appears before me and states that the appeals have been preferred before the Supreme Court on 25-3-1991 along with petitions for stay. However, in spite of sincere steps taken by the Department, they are not able to secure order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rathna Fire Works Factory Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT23(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the show cause notice issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why certain sums specified therein being the duty involved for the period referred to therein after disallowing the cash discount raised by the parties should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act also called upon the petitioners to submit their written explanation. 2. The matter in issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. S. S. M. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. 1986 (24) E.L.T. 269 wherein it is held as follows : 'Trade discount by whatever name it is described should be deducted from the sale price if such discount as known to the purchaser at or prior to the removal of goods. In the instant case, the price list prepared by the respondent disclosed that the particular percentage of the total price will be allowed as discount if the payment is made in cash or within cer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »