Chennai Court March 1992 Judgments
Coimbatore Texcity Share Brokers Association and Another Vs. Union of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas29(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ401
ORDERAbdul Hadi J.1. W.A. No. 1275 of 1991 is by the writ petitioner, the Coimbator Texcity Share Brokers Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tex Association'), against the dismissal order dated September 24, 1991, of Bakthavatsalam J. of its Writ Petition No. 11575 of 1991. Writ Appeal No. 1415 of 1991 is by the writ petitioner. The Cotton City Share Brokers Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cotton Association') against the consequent dismissal order dated November 18, 1991, of its W.P. No. 16027 of 1991. Both the said writ petitions sought for issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned orders, respectively, dated August 7, 1991, and September 18, 1991, both of the Deputy Director (Stock Exchange), Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs), Government of India, the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions. By the said impugned orders, the respective applications of the respective petitioners/appellants, under section 3 of the Securities C...
Tag this Judgment!Vaikundam Rubber Company Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR589(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner before this court. For the assessment year 1981-82, as against the income returned by the petitioner from its agricultural holdings to the tune of Rs. 44,31,613, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer determined the net income of the assessee under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, at Rs. 48,38,919. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave partial relief to the petitioner. Not satisfied with the extent of the relief granted, the petitioner pursued the matter on further appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal in its turn also granted partial relief in the appeal to the petitioner. As against the claims disallowed by the authorities below including the Appellate Tribunal, the above revision has been filed before this court. 2. The revision petition before us concerns the disallowance by the authorities of seven items of claims which may be set out hereunder : 1. Entertainment expenditure disallowance - 50 per ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadoss Motor Transport Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1060
P.S. Mishra, J. 1. The owner of a lorry which met with an accident and caused the death of two persons, who were travelling with their goods carried in the lorry, has appealed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court holding it liable to compensate and pay the amount fixed as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the applications filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Facts which have been found to be established and are not disputed before us are as follows:A lorry bearing registration No. MSN 6072 collided with a stationary lorry on 3.7.1979 at about 3.00 a.m. in Krishnagiri on the Krishnagiri-Madras Trunk Road. One Velmurugan and another Nagendran, who were travelling in the lorry along with their goods, died. The widow and mother of the deceased Velmurugan and the mother and the father of the deceased Nagendran filed their respective claim petitions before the Tribunal. They alleged that the accident took place due to rashness, a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadoss Motor Transport Vs. New India Assurance Company and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ301
Mishra, J.1. The owner of a lorry which met with an accident and caused the death of two persons, who were travelling with their goods carried in the lorry, has appealed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court holding it liable to compensate and pay the amount fixed as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the applications filed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Facts which have been found to be established and are not disputed before us are as follows: A lorry bearing registration number MSN-6072 collied with a stationary lorry on 3.7.1979 at about 3.00 a.m. from Krishnagiri in Krishnagiri-Madras Trunk Road. One Velmurugan and another Nagendran, who were travelling in the lorry along with their goods died. The widow and mother of the deceased Velmurugan and the mother and the father of the deceased Nagendran, filed their respective claim petitions before the Tribunal. They alleged that the accident took place due to rashness and neglig...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadoss Motor Transport Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC642
P.S. Mishra, J.1. The owner of lorry which met with an accident and caused the death of two persons, who were travelling with their goods carried in the lorry, has appealed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court holding it liable to compensate and pay the amount fixed as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the applications filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Facts which have been found to be established and are not disputed before us are as follows:A lorry bearing registration No. MSN 6072 collided with a stationary lorry on 3.7.1979 at about 3.00 a.m. in Krishnagiri on the Krishangiri-Madras Trunk Road. One Velmurugan and another Nagendran, who were travelling in the lorry along with their goods, died. The widow and mother of the deceased Velmurugan and the mother and the father of the deceased Nagendran filed their respective claim petitions before the Tribunal. They alleged that the accident took place due to rashness and n...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.A. Ganapathy Mudaliar Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT525(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner's wife V. S. Muthammal was a licensee in respect of manufacture of safety matches under L.4 Licence No. 1/M/70. With the reference to the manufacture of matches during the years 1969-70 to 1973-74, the said Muthammal paid excise duty at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross matches of 50 and that was accepted by the first respondent. The rate of duty was subsequently increased from Rs. 3.75 to 4.30 and that such an enhancement was under challenge and even though this Court set aside the said enhancement, the Supreme Court on appeal reversed the decision of this Court upholding Notification 205/67 enchancing the rate of duty from Rs. 3.75 to 4.30 per gross. When a demand was made, the said Muthammal disputed the demand and challenged her liability to pay the differential tax on the basis that the demand was illegal and was barred by limitation and that no demand could be made for recovery of short levy besides raising other contentions. Similar and identical demands were...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rama Naidu Vs. S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ63
Mishra, J.1. The first defendant in a suit on the Original Side of the court has appealed against an order of injunction issued in terms as follows:That the interim order of the court herein dated 13.6.1991 directing the respondents herein not to encumber or alienate the property more fully set out in the schedule hereto, in any manner to third parties and extended till 27.6.1991 by order dated 20.6.1991 be and is hereby made absolute till the disposal of the above suit C.S. No. 597 of 1991.2. The plaintiff/first respondent and the second defendant/second respondent have a common cause in the injunction petition. For the purpose of appreciating the nature of the dispute between the parties, we may refer to the contents of the plaint and if necessary to the affidavits filed in the course of the hearing of the injunction petition. We do not, however, have the advantage of the written statement of the first defendant/appellant. We shall, however, for the purpose of deciding, the question ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jothi and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ525
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings made under the Land Acquisition Act.2. W.P. No. 16200 of 1990 is filed by the owners of the land and W.P. No. 6298 of 1991 is filed by the agreement holder who entered into an agreement with the petitioners in W.P. No. 16200 of 1990.3. An extent of 3.94.5 hectare of land at Kondur Village were proposed for acquisition to provide house-sites for Adi Dravidars. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published in the Gazette on 13.9.1989 and it was published in Tamil Dailies on 15.9.1989 and 17.9.1989 and the substance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the village on 30.9.1989. Notices for enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act were sent and served on the petitioner and the said enquiry was conducted on 17.11.1989. After over-ruling the objections raised by the landowners, a de...
Tag this Judgment!T. Paul Durai Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC180
Janarthanam, J.1. This is an action taken, knocking at the doors of this Court, to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') praying for a direction for investigation, by an agency different from and independent of the one, before whom an information disclosing an alleged commission of a cognizable offence had been laid and within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence is said to have taken place.2. Though the point canvassed centres round the limit of jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation of an offence registered at a police station, to pinpoint the contentions, relevant facts may be stated with circumspection, as the case is sub-judice, because any overt or covert expression of opinion on the facts in controversy awaiting adjudication may be censured as judicial impropriety.3. Factual matrix will highlight the situation. One Andiappan alias Pichai Rajavelu is a Scrap Merchant, residing in Madras. He mar...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Tirupathi Plastics Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC13
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of adjudication passed by the third respondent on 27.12.1991.2. The petitioner earlier came up to this Court in W.P. No. 15619 of 1991 and by order dated 28.11.1991 reported as Sri Tirupathi Plastics v. Union of India and Ors. in [1992] 38 ECC 263 (Mad) this Court set aside the order of adjudication and allowed the writ petition and remitted back the matter to the adjudicating officer for making order of adjudication afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In pursuance of the orders of this Court the impugned order has been passed.3. The petitioner filed a bill of entry 249241 dated 30.7.1991 for the clearance of 13.8 metric tonnes of cellulose acetate cuttings. The goods were sought for clearance on the strength of invoice showing the value of 250 US Dollars per MT though the recorded price was 280 US Dollars per MT with the concurrence of the petitioner. Accordingly, the bill of entry was assessed to customs dut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »