Chennai Court October 1992 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.A. Azizullah and anr. Vs. Sakthivelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ234
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the decree-holders against the dismissal of their E.P. No. 9 of 1990 for executing the decree obtained by them in O.S. No. 303 of 1977 on 15.10.1979. The material portion of the decree runs as follows:1. That the plaintiffs' title be and the same is hereby declared to the suit site.2. That the defendants do deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.3. That the defendants do remove the superstructure put by them in the suit site by means of mandatory injunction at their own cost.So Clause 2 of the decree grants possession of the suit site to the plaintiffs/petitioners and since there is a superstructure on the suit site, as per the prayer in the suit, Clause 3 grants a mandamus directing the defendants/respondents to remove the said superstructure put up by them in the suit site. The abovesaid E.P. is for executing the said decree for possession and for mandatory injunction to remove the above said supers...
Chidambaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ535
Mishra, J.1. Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal filed a suit in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 447 of 1979 to set aside a registered deed of settlement dated 23.1.1975 which she herself had executed in favour of her brother's daughter, the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant, 2nd respondent is the husband of the 1st defendant, 1st respondent. She sought cancellation of the said deed on the ground that the respondents misrepresented that she was executing only a power of attorney for collecting the arrears of rent from the tenants. According to her, thus, the respondents exercised undue influence and fraudulently got the said document executed on the above misrepresentation.2. The defendants/respondents denied the plea of misrepresentation, undue influence and fraud, denied that there were any arrears due from the tenants and stated that there was no necessity to execute a power deed. They came out with a positive case that the 1st defendant/1st respondent was brought up by the pl...
Pe. Ramasamy thevar Vs. Perumal thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ423
Thangamani, J.1. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the trial court. They instituted O.S. No. 464 of 1977 of the file of the District Munsif of Periyakulam for a declaration that the respondents 1 to 7 are entitled to suit items 1 to 7 respectively and that the 8th respondent has right in suit item No. 8 on the basis of an Othi and for consequential permanent injunction. Respondents 1 to 5 claimed title relying on the settlement deeds Exs.A-10, A-13, A-l, A-6 and A-3 respectively dated 25.5.1967 executed by the appellant/defendant. The 6th and 7th respondents based their claims on Ex.A-15, dated 5.7.1971 and Ex.A-19, dated 25.11.1967 the sale agreements respectively executed by the appellant. The 8th respondent as P.W. 8 deposed that he was in possession of the 8th item as per an oral Othi entered into between himself and the appellant. The trial court though found title in favour of respondents 1 to 5 took the view that possession did not remain with them in respect of the respecti...
Ponds (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC291; 1993(63)ELT3(Mad); (1993)IMLJ355
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') dated 22-11-1989 in R.C.P. No. 20 of 1989, directing the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench of Madras, to refer four questions of law specified below, to this Court for its opinion, the said Tribunal has referred the same and thus this R.C. No. 1 of 1990 is before us. The said four questions arise out of the said Tribunal's order dated 15-10-1987 in Excise Appeal No. 271 of 1987 (MAS.) filed by the appellant therein, Pond's (India) Limited (the applicant before us). 2. The said questions relate to scheme known as MODVAT. MODVAT is short form of Modified Value Added Tax. This scheme enables the manufacturers, whose manufactured products (termed as 'final products') suffer excise duty under the Act, to obtain instant and complete reimbursement of specified duty paid on the goods used in or i...
Sri Vijay Siddha Products Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC234
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This Writ petition is directed against a notice issued to the petitioner to show cause why a sum of excise duty should not be demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that it had filed a declaration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that the product is falling under Tariff Sub-heading 3003.30 as it is a siddha product produced according to Siddha medicines. It is the case of the petitioner that twice samples were taken and reports were called for from the laboratory and on both the occasions, reports were in their favour and the classification was under sub-heading 3003.30. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the present show-cause notice, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the product falls under sub-heading 3307.30 and proceeded to impose duty on that basis. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner was given opportunity only to show-cause against the quantification of the duly and not the class...
Sri-la-sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami Vs. Sri-la-sri Arunachalasamy Chi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ274
Somasundaram, J.1. This C.M.P. has been referred to the Bench in as much as the view taken by Srinivasan, J., in G. Krishnan v. Tmt. Thulasi Ammal (1991)1 L. W. 513, with regard to the scope of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, C.P.C. (hereinafter called the Code), is in conflict with the view taken by Shanmukham, J. in C.M.P. No. 352 of 1986 in A.S. No. 297 of 1980.2. The petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 36 of 1984 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapatinam for declaration that he is the Madathipathi and Adheenakartha of Shri Arunachala Gnanadesika Swarnigal Vedanta Sravana Mutt, Panchanadikulam and for a consequential permanent injunction. After trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and decreed the suit O.S. No. 36 of 1984. As against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1984, the respondents have preferred, A.S. No. 730 of 1987 before this Court and the same is pending. In...
R. Srinivasan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ384
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, when the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing. 2. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to admit the petitioner in the B.L. evening course at Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Madras.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner applied for B.L. Evening course for the academic year 1992-93 and appeared for the entrance examination. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Vaniyar community which is a backward class and he seems to be a handicapped candidate and as such he applied for the B.L. course under the handicapped quota wherein certain seats have been reserved for handicapped candidates. As per the entrance examination results published in the newspapers dated 7.8.1992, the petitioner seems to have been selected against the handicapped quota. When th...
K.S. Mohan Vs. Sandhya Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad59
ORDER1. The above Original Petition is filed by the husband against his wife to direct his wife to hand over custody of the minor son Skanda, who is now aged about four years, under the following circumstances. Application No. 5362 of 1991 is filed by the petitioner/husband for an interim order granting custody of the minor boy Skanda to the petitioner pending disposal of the main Original Petition.2. Application No. 462 of 1992 is filed by the respondent/wife claiming visitation right to the two daughters Swetha and Shradha and to retain their custody during week ends. The said application (Application No. 462 of 1992) was filed before the Family Court, Madras, and numbered as I.A. No. 649 of 1991 in O.P. No. 651 of 1991. Since both the respondent and the petitioner agreed for the transfer and trial of that application along with O.P. No. 573 of 1991, an order was passed by me by consent transferring I.A. No. 649 of 1991 in O.P. No. 651 of 1991 from the Family Court, Madras, to this C...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.S. Meenakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR260(Mad)
1. For the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, assessments under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were made on December 20, 1983, on the estate of late V. S. Meenakshi Achi, represented by the executor V. S. Sivalingam Chettiar of Poolankurichi in the status of an individual, under section 16(3) read with section 17 of the Act. Against the assessments so made, the assessee, viz., the executor to the estate, preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and secured relief in respect of the valuation of certain unquoted shares held by the assessee in Messrs. Abirami Cotton Mills Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal against Smt. V. S. Meenakshi Achi, who was impleaded as the respondent in the appeals. These appeals were dealt with by the Tribunal and disposed of in the manner indicated in its order for statistical purposes. In these tax case petitions, under ...
S.P.A.M. Krishnan Chettiar and Son Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Mad)343; [1993]202ITR81(Mad)
S. Ramalingam, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1980-81, a sum of Rs. 2,65,105 had been added to the returned income of Rs. 1,62,098. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by order dated December 28, 1987. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on August 9, 1989, under section 245C(1) of the Act for settlement in respect of the assessment year 1980-81. This application was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated September 20, 1989, which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the two reasons given in the order : (1) That since the application was filed on August 9, 1989, it is governed by the requirements of the amended section 245C(1) of the Act; and (2) That the petitioner had not disclosed any amount in his applica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »