Chennai Court December 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. Chinnayyan and ors. Vs. C. Chithambaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ41
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal arising out of a suit for partition. In this second appeal, this Court is concerned only with items 1 and 8 of the suit properties.2. With reference to item No. 1, as against the claim of the defendants that the plaintiffs' suit was barred since Ex.A-6=(Ex.B-1) mortgage dated 22.11.1089 ME (=27.11.1914 A.D) in favour of the 1st defendant's mother was not redeemed at all, the trial Court has held that suit item No. 1 was not the subject matter of Ex.A-6 at all and has granted decree for half share therein to the plaintiffs. No doubt, the lower appellate Court did not meet this finding of the trial court by any discussion, but it held that Ex.A-6 mortgage did not take effect and that, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to any right under the said mortgage. Thus holding, the lower appellate court concurred with the trial court with reference to item 1 and granted decree to the plaintiffs for the abovesaid hal...
R.V. Ramalingam Vs. Abdul Muthaliff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad158
ORDER1. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Thiruvarur, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question on the ground of wilful default, act of waste and ceasing to occupy the premises in question. The said R.C.O.P. was transferred to the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nannilarti, and renumbered as R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991. The said R.C.O.P. is pending. The petitioner-tenant filed a counter in the R.C.O.P. stating that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction as the lease is only of the site. He has also denied the claims put forward by the respondent-landlord in the R.C.O.P.2. While matters stood thus, the landlord filed I.A. No. 36 of 1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, for appointment of a Commissioner, under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitione...
Rane (Madras) Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ii Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC166
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. As I propose to remit back the matter to the first respondent I am not setting out the facts in detail. 3. The point in dispute between the petitioner and the Revenue is whether the petitioner has accounted for the inputs sent outside the factory for processing in full as required under Rule 57-F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to the Revenue the petitioner has failed in that and therefore after issuing a show cause notice on 16.8.1989 a duty and also penalty amounting to Rs. 5,02,552/- was levied. Aggrieved by that he filed writ petition No. 14615 of 1989 mainly contending that he was not given full opportunity to place all the materials and before that the first respondent passed the order imposing duty and penalty. This Court by order dated 6.12.1989 permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Collector, Customs (Appeals...
Corn Products Company, Bombay Vs. Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Municipa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1106
Janarthanam, J. 1. On 25-6-1989 to 10 a.m., the Food Inspector attached to Ilanji Town Panchayat, inspected 0.2123 Crescent Co-operative Stores situate at Amman Kovil Street, Ilanji Town whose head office is situate at Kadayanallur and one T. V. Abdul Khader is its Secretary. One G. Murugan, a salesman of the said branch stores, was then stated to be transacting the business. The Food Inspector, after expressing his intention to take sample of GLUCOVITA GLUCOSE-D of Corn Products C., (India) Ltd., Bombay, for the purpose of analysis, actually took samples of the same, after complying with the formalities associated with such taking of sample. The sample sent to the public analyst turned out to be not conforming to the standard prescribed for Dextrose with respect of sulphated ash and consequently, the Public Analyst opined that the sample so sent was adulterated. The Food Inspector then laid a complaint against the said G. Murugan (salesman), the said T. V. Abdul Khader (Secretary), th...
Workmen of Deccan Sugars Vs. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1211Mad
ORDER1. Though at the outset I told the counsel that the proper remedy for the petitioners would be to approach the authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act to get the relief which they want, learned counsel for the petitioners insisted upon the question raised in the writ petition being decided here. It is submitted that so far no Court has considered the question and given a decision. The point raised in the Writ Petition is whether in a case of transfer of undertaking, the employer is bound to comply with the requirements of Ss. 25-N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') which are found in Chapter V-B thereof. In the present case, a notice was issued by the first respondent namely, Deccan sugar undertaking at Pugalur, Tiruchirapalli District, is transferred to the second respondent E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited effective 10.15 a.m. on November 13, 1992. Consequently, all the employees listed thereunder were informed that they are enti...
Marudhapandiyan Vs. State, Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1594
Arumugham, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur has filed this Criminal Appeal, against the conviction and Sentence passed on 20-3-1985, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 15-8-1982, at about 3.00 p.m., at Vennaputtur Harijan Street, he intentionally caused the death of one Chinniyan by cutting him with a sickle on his head and other parts of his body and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution, as held out from the evidence of the 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documentary evidence relied on, is briefly as follows :- P.W. 1 Ravanammal is the first wife of the deceased Chinniyan and one Solaiammal is his second wife. P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased. P.W. 4 Kalyani is the son of the deceased. All of them were living together in a house situat...
Swaminathan and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2379
Arumugham, J. 1. The accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1984, on the file of the Session Judge, Thanjavur West, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment, dated 30-6-1986, convicting accused 1 to 3 for an offence under S. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them, thereunder, to undergo imprisonment for their lives and also convicting accused 2 and 3 for an offence under S. 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months. Both the sentence awarded under S. 302 read with 34 IPC and the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded under S. 307 read with 34, IPC, with regard to accused 2 and 3, were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The allegations of the prosecution against the accused were that on 5-6-1983, at 8-00 p.m., near the old Palakkarai at Kumbakonam, they along w...
Tube Investments of India Limited Vs. the Assistant Collector of Centr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC181
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The question which is raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the demand is barred by limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The question turns on the interpretation of the section. Learned Counsel also refers to the facts of the case and submits that the assessment in this case cannot be said to be provisional within the meaning of Sub-section (3)(S)(bt) of Section 11-A of the Act. It is a question which will depend upon the facts of the case and the construction of the section. Admittedly, an appeal lies against the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) to the Tribunal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not been taking a uniform view with regard to the interpretation of Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is stated in the affidavit that the Special Bench at Delhi has held in one case that if the clearance is provisional for one respect, it is provisional for all respects. It...
Dharmaraja Vellalar Vs. Ramachandra Vellalar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ426
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 42 of 1990 arises against the order made in E.P. No. 6 of 1988 in O.S. No. 5 of 1960 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. The first defendant/first judgment-debtor, is the petitioner in the civil revision petition and the plaintiff/decree holder is the respondent. A preliminary decree against the first defendant/petitioner was passed on 8.2.1965 and the final decree was passed on 24.1.1979. In this E.P., the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,16,315.55. The E.P. is filed under Order 21, Rules 54,66 and 72 and under Section 151 C.P.C. for realisation of the said amount by order of attachment and sale of the property of the first defendant mentioned in the E.P. The execution is resisted by the first defendant by filing a counter contending inter alia that the plaintiff/decree holder is not entitled to claim his share in the execution petition. The preliminary decree is to the following effect:That the plaintiff be...
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. T.P. Srinivasa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ615
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff Seethalakshmiammal is the appellant whose suit has been dismissed with costs.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,712.50 said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant Srinivasa Naicker. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000 from the plaintiff on 14.9.1964 and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A-1 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 10.11.1966, a sum of Rs. 2,200 on 4.11.1969 and Rs. 1,000 on 3.1.1972 and made endorsements in his own handwriting on the reverse of the suit promissory note. Inspite of several demands by the plaintiffs the defendant has not paid the balance amount. Therefore the suit. The further case of the plaintiff is that since the defendant is an agriculturist he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973 and therefore interest is claimed as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »