Chennai Court October 1992 Judgments
Thyagarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1933
Arumugham, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned principal Sessions Judge, Salem, rendered in Sessions Case No. 189 of 1988, dated 30th April, 1986, convicting the appellant/accused under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, for having murdered his father Arunachalam, by attacking with a crowbar on his head at about 11.00 p.m., on 5-4-1985, at his residence in Rasipuram, Salem District, within the limits of Rasipuram police station, as committed to by the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Rasipuram, in P.R.C. No. 9 of 1985, on 13-9-1985. 2. The case of the prosecution as held out from the recorded and documentary evidence before the Sessions Judge are briefly stated as follows :- The deceased is the father of the appellant/accused. Both were residing jointly in a house situate in Thiruvenkatavilas Palli Street, in Rasipuram Town. The appellant/accused was employed in a soda factory at Rasipuram, belonged to one Sundara...
Tag this Judgment!Care International Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT232(Mad)
ORDER1. In these matters, initially two orders were passed, one by the Assistant Collector of Customs fixing the value of the goods and another by the Additional Collector of Customs who considered the licence angle and passed an order that there was a misdeclaration of the value and directed confiscation of the goods. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16145/92 challenged the said orders in imposing certain conditions for he release of the goods and directing the petitioner to file appeal against the order of adjudication. The petitioners preferred appeals against the orders of the Assistant Collector and Additional Collector referred to above. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and remanded the matter taking the view that two different authorities cannot pass different orders on the same matter and consequently, the Appellate Authority directed the lower authority to consider all the aspects of the matter by one order and it further directed that one competent authority shall dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC219; 1993(63)ELT427(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The petitioners herein, who have been previously benefited by what is called MODVAT credit are aggrieved by the demands of excise duty, which, according to them, have been made - (1) in violation of the Notification No. 208/83 dated 1-8-1983; (2) without complying with the requirements of rules of natural justice; and (3) in violation of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1 of 1944. Petitioner, Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd., hereinafter called 'Rockweld', manufacturers electrodes of various qualities and sizes which are made out of steel wire rods. According to the petitioner, the input steel wire rods are normally purchased from public sector undertakings like Steel Authority of India or units like TISCO. These rods are classified under Heading 72.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and are charged to duty at the rate of Rs. 365 per M.T. Rods themselves are obtained from rolling of billets. Billets are charged to duty at the rate of Rs. 365 per M.T. under ...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxy Agencies Vs. the Food Corporation of India, Represented by Its J ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ403
Mishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has held that since a clause in the arbitration agreement contemplated a period of limitation of one year, the plaintiffs appellant's suit under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed beyond time. We record, however, before we state the facts that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the reason of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P.K.K. Amson and Besom, Kerala : [1977]1SCR996 and another authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja & Company : [1988]3SCR402 . Facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant herein was appointed by the respondent Corporation to transport foodgrains, fertilizers, etc. from Madras Port to Air Field (vacant space of their storage) at Sholavaram for a period of three months from 6.4.1976. After furnishing the required security deposit, the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shanmugha Sundaram Vs. the Collector of Kamarajar Dist. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad258
ORDER1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to put up any bore well in S. No. 275/1 of Konnur village, Srivilliputhur taluk Kamarajar district which is a public pathway.3. The petitioner is an agriculturist and he owns nearly 15 acres of land, as alleged by him at Konnur village, Srivilliputhur taluk. The petitioner alleges that survey number 275/1 is a road intended for movement of vehicles, carts etc., that the said road runs for about 4-1/2 kilometers and that on both sides of the road there arc agricultural lands cultivating paddy, sugarcane and chilly etc. The petitioner also alleges that the said road connecting the said Konnur village with Watrap used for transporting furtilisers, seeds, seeds, paddy and sugarcane, that it is in existence for more than 60 years and that...
Tag this Judgment!Gold Star Line Ltd. Vs. Bafna Brothers HereIn Represented by their Pow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ609
Mishra, J.1. It would have been more in order had these appeals been heard by the same Bench which heard O.S.A. Nos. 181 and 182 of 1985 filed on behalf of the Port Trust against the impugned judgment, but these appeals by the first defendant/Carrier, have been listed after the said two appeals have been heard by another Bench (Mishra, J. and Padmini Jesudurai, J.). We are informed that judgment in the said two appeals has not yet been delivered.2. The two plaintiffs, viz. the consignee represented by their power of Attorney Agent and National Insurance Company Limited have filed the suits C.S. Nos. 209 and 210 of 1980, alleging inter alia that the first defendant/Carrier, or the ship known as M/s. Gold Star Line Limited, incorporated in Hongkong, carried consignments of a merchant at Bangko to the first plaintiff, they being 4,000 bags of greengram and another 2,000 bags of greengram, to the same destination, Madras. The consignments were insured with the second plaintiff National Ins...
Tag this Judgment!C. Amarendran and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ500
Mishra, J.1. The respondent-State Bank of India, Kancheepuram branch, filed a suit, C.S. No. 171 of 1975, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,93,615.35 with interest at 14% per annum till date of payment alleging inter alia that defendants 1 to 3 started a partnership firm under the name and style of National Engineering Works which firm approached it in 1967 for financial accommodation. The Bank sanctioned instalment credit loan of Rs. 67,994 on 19.8.1968, accepted a cash credit lock and key pledge agreement executed by the firm on 112.1970 for Rs. 45,000 and a cash credit Mundy type pledge agreement for Rs. 2,75,000 on the same date, viz., 12.2.1970. According to the hank the firm pledged the machinery as security for all types of advances sanctioned by the bank by their letter dated 12.11970. and executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,50,000 towards cash credit bills along with an agreement for accommodation against bills tendered for collection, on 16.3.1970. The firm, according to the b...
Tag this Judgment!Nazima Begum Vs. Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1336
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the wife of the detenu Amanullah, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 21-1-1992 and set her husband at liberty. The impugned order of detention was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act 1974 (as amended) with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods in future. 2. The brief facts which led to the passing of the order as follows :- The officers of the Air Intellingence Unit at Calcutta Airport, intercepted the detenu while he was passing through the green channel towards the exit gate on 6-1-1992 and on examination of the passport and the disembarkation card of the detenu, it revealed that he is a holder of India Passport No. C-533792 dated 25-10-198...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan and Others Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2364
1. Accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 187 of 1986 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari, preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction of accused 1 and 2 under S. 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code, and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and that of the third accused under S. 376(2)(g) read with S. 511, Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. These appellants were tried for the charge under S. 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 16-2-1986 between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. at Mettur Thermal Power Project, in the lane behind the E.B. office, P.W. 1 Sakunthala was subjected to rape, by accused 1 to 3, against her wishes and thereby committed the offence of rape under S. 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, filed Exs. P1 to 13 and marked M.Os. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the oral a...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: [1994]209ITR174(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both at the instance of the assessee as well as the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : The questions referred in T. C. 166 of 1980 at the instance of the assessee : '(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correct in holding that the relief under section 80J is allowable only proportionately for a period of five months (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in holding that any part of the expenditure up to the date of commencement of production other than the expenditure relating to marketing was not part of cost of the plant, machinery and building?' The questions referred in T. C. Nos. 167 and 168 of 1980 at the instance of the Department : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »