Chennai Court February 1992 Judgments
Eff Aar Fabrications Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC63; 1992(60)ELT186(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petitions can be dealt with together since they are directed against an action proposed to be taken under the same notice dated 31-3-1989 except that the petitioner in one is by the Fabricator and the other is the owner of the lorry which was found transporting the goods in question. 2. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 5760 of 1989 is for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to forbear from implementing the proposals under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as contained in the notice of the further respondent in his C. No. V/Ch.73/15/2/88-Cx. Adj. dated 31-3-1989 in any manner whatever against or with reference to the petitioner. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 5761 of 1989 is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from implementing the proposals under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as contained in the notice of the respondent in his C. No. V/Ch.73/15/2/88-Cx. Adj. dated 31-3-1989, in any manner wha...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Optical Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC319
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the third respondent to honour the detention certificates produced by the petitioner and refund the demurrage charges collected on the 12 bills of entries filed by the petitioner and pass such further or other orders....2. The petitioner imported two consignments of 250 metric tonnes and 170 metric tonnes of electrolytic tinplate waste/waste soft and bright from M/s. Euro Metal Ltd., United Kingdom. The petitioner filed bills of entries for the clearance of the consignments and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, passed an order enhancing the value of the imported goods stating that it was not known as to whether the goods conformed strictly to the different specifications mentioned in the relevant indents except for the sizes and thickness. Hence the Assistant Collector of Customs ordered asse...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chellammal and ors. Vs. R. Gangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ45
ORDERJanarthanam J.1. One Nalliah was the sole proprietor of Balasubramanian Oil and Ginning Factory, Dindigal. He had been purchasing cotton seeds for his business from various traders through M/s. Murugesan and Company (in short 'the firm') a registered partnership firm. One S. Murugesan, V.R. Nagarathina, S.M. Mathiaselvam and R.N. Balu are stated to be the partners of the said firm.2. There was one proprietrix concern going by name Prakash Cotton traders, Rajapalayam, and one R. Gangammal is its sole proprietrix. She had been effecting sales of cottonseeds on credit to the said Nalliah. Certain amounts due to her by the said Nalliah had been paid in time on demand emerging therefor.3. In the meantime, the said Nalliah died on 25.2.1988, leaving behind him his wife N. Chellammal, son N. Balasubramanian, and four daughters, namely, N. Vijayalakshmi, minor Vijayarani, minor Kalaiselvi and minor Karpagavalli. Subsequent to the death of the said Nalliah, his wife son and four daughters ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. Janardhanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ214
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the orders of the court below granting permission underOrder 13, Rule 2, C.P.C., to the respondent to file additional list of documents. Learned Counsel submits that in C.R.P.No.410 of 1992 an affidavit was filed setting out some reason for the delay in filing the documents. But, sufficient cause is not shown for producing the documents at a late stage. He submits that in C.R.P.No.411 of 1992 the respondent did not even file an affidavit in support of the petition to explain the delay in filing the documents. In the typed set filed by him a copy of the petition is included. The petition refers to an affidavit accompanying the same. The petition is dated 9.10.1991. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner he has categorically stated that no affidavit was filed along with the petition and no affidavit was served on him. Yet, the order of the court below does not consider the question as to whether an affidavit was fil...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Automobiles Private Ltd. Vs. Tirunelveli Sivakasi Hindu Nadar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ185
Bellie, J.1. The appeal and the AAO are by the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 101 of 1979 against whom the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages, and for possession of the property has been decreed, dismissing his application I.ANo.996 of 1979 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act.2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the defendant is a tenant therein. On the allegation that there was arrears of rent from 1.12.1974 to 30.8.1977 amounting to Rs. 8,800 and has caused damage to the property to the value of Rs. 3,000 and the defendant is liable to pay that amount, and the tenancy has been terminated, and the plaintiff wants the defendant to be evicted, and that the defendant has set up title against the plaintiff, the suit has been filed.3. The defendant company contended that there was an oral agreement to sell the property to it by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 75,000 in respect of which it paid an advance of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Loganathan Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ219
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay pensionary benefits as commuted and quantified at Rs. 20,206 together with interest at 18% p.a. from 2.11.1990.2. The petitioner joined the State Transport Department in 1961 as a Contractor and joined the Corporation and became an employee of the Corporation when it was established in January, 1972. He was working as Traffic Inspector till ....21.10.1990 when he gave a petition for voluntary retirement with effect from 21.10.1990. The letter was accepted by the Corporation. On 2.11.1990, he was informed that he was entitled to commutation of pension amount of Rs. 20,206. When it was not given to the petitioner, he issued a notice through his counsel in November, 1990. The respondent by its letter dated 27.12.1990 informed the petitioner's counsel that the amount had been withheld consequent upon the receipt of an order of attachment from the IX City Civil Court...
Tag this Judgment!D. Nityanandam and anr. Vs. M.D.S. Habeen Aysha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ640
P.S. Mishra, J.1. The defendants 1 and 2 in C.S. No. 500 of 1988, who were respondents in Application No. 2386 of 1991, have preferred this appeal against an order, appointing Advocate Commissioner to record the oral evidence of one Balasubramaniam, the husband of the 3rd defendant, in the suit and the third defendant herself. It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant/appellant is the husband of the 2nd defendant/appellant and the 3rd defendant/respondent is the sister of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd defendant sold the property bearing No. 3, Sixth St., Gopalapuram, Madras to the plaintiff/respondents 1 to 3 herein, under a registered deed. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, the 3rd defendant delivered vacant possession of the upstairs portion of the house property, at the time of purchase and when they (plaintiffs/respondents) demanded vacant possession from the respondents 1 and 2, of the portion in their occupation, they stated that they would vacate the same but they did not...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jagadeesan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR307(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the sole accused in E. O. C. C. No. 284 of 1989, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan (E. O. I.), Madras. On a private complaint preferred by the respondent who is the Income-tax Officer, City Ward V(2), Madras, the petitioner is being prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, viz., wilful failure to file the return of income within due time for the assessment year 1985-86. 2. In this petition, preferred under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of the process of court, Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that once interest was levied under section 139(8), of the Act, prosecution cannot be maintained for failure to file the return in due time. He pointed out that the assessment order showed that interest had been levied ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT199(Mad)
ORDER1. The relief prayed for in all the writ petitions are same and hence a common order is passed. The relief prayed for is to comply with the orders of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy setting aside the order of the lower authority and held that the petitioners will be eligible to the benefits of Notification 64/86 and received stampings and lamination under Chapter X procedure and to direct the second respondent to grant L6 Licence to the petitioner. It seems these orders were passed in August, 1991. In pursuance of the orders the petitioners filed applications in form A.L. 6 in September, 1991 to the third respondent for grant of licence in compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority. Since the petitioners have not been favoured with any reply and on the ground that the respondents have not taken any action on the request, the petitioners are before me. 2. After hearing the arguments of Mr. Sashidharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, it...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Another Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1Mad; (1992)IIMLJ382
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an interim order passed by the first respondent Tribunal in M.A. No. 62 of 1991 in I.D. No. 16 of 1991, dated November 7, 1991. By this order an ad hoc relief was given by the first respondent Tribunal to the members of the second respondent association. 2. A settlement was arrived at between the second respondent association and the petitioner management under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was formulated with regard to dearness allowance. According to Clause 21(1) of the Settlement, the settlement came into force on June 1, 1985 and was in force till May 31, 1989 and shall continue to remain in force thereafter until the same is terminated by giving two months notice in writing by other parties. A notice under Sec. 19(2) & (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was given by the second respondent Union on March 31, 1989 for termination of the settlement dated May 17, 1985 raising Charter of Demands. A subsequent Charter of Deman...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »