Chennai Court April 1992 Judgments
Soudambika Finance Pvt. Ltd. Coimbatore and Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad190; [1995]82CompCas302(Mad)
ORDER1. Since common and similar as well as overlapping questions of law and facts arise for consideration and submissions have been made by counsel appearing on either side, these writ petitions are considered and dealt with in common.2. The above writ petitions involve challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act 40 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', on various grounds. As a matter of fact in some of the writ petitions the challenge is confined only to some specific provisions in the Act and the Rules alone. Of the various petitioners, some are either public or private Ltd. companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, or proprietary or partnership concerns or individual organisers themselves. Since different writ petitions have been filed seeking different reliefs in relation to different provisions, 1 consider it enough, instead of referring to...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Nagercoil Vs. R. Sun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ956; 1992(40)ECC327
ORDER1. The Customs and Central Excise Personnel, attached to the Customs Preventive Unit, Nagercoil, on credible information regarding the alleged clandestine transport of smuggled cloves from Tharvaikulam to Kunjanvilai sent by one Thangadurai and Thangaraji of Tuticorin to one Sundar of Nagercoil through lorry bearing registration number TDS 1332, rushed to Valliyoor on 10-2-1992 and kept a watch for the arrival of the suspected vehicle. On sighting such a vehicle, the said personnel stopped the same and on examination, they found only cloves being strewn and spilled in the lorry. They, it is said, interrogated one J. Royappan, the driver and one Senthil, elder brother's son of the aforesaid Thangaraj, cleaner of the lorry and on such interrogation, they derived solidified satisfaction as to the veracity of the information earlier received, on their making a frank and true disclosure of what all transpired. They, it is said discharged the said cloves in the godown at Door No. 203/1-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR390(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax case reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the advance tax paid and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet should not be deducted from the tax payable in determining the provision for taxation which is deductible as a liability while computing the value of unquoted equity share under rule 1D for wealth-tax purposes ?' 2. We find that the common question so referred is governed by the decision reported in Balakrishnan (L. G.) v. CWT : [1988]173ITR266(Mad) . It is also not in dispute that the answer returned in the said decision would govern these references. In that view, we answer the common question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Carbon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT436(Mad)
ORDER1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in his file C. No. V/68/3/12/82-VC, dated 25-5-1983 and of the second respondent Order No. 500/83(M) dated 21-12-1983 confirming the orders of the first respondent. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers of carbon and zinc elements in their unit and they also purchase caustic soda, glass jar, oil bottle, porcelain cover for A.D. cell from the market. The petitioners actually manufactured A.D. wet cells falling under T.I. 68 of Central Excise Tariff and they have been duly licensed under the Central Excise Tariff for the manufacture of goods under T.I. 68. While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28-7-1982 calling upon them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty of Rs. 99,957.56 should not be demanded from them on 15100 sets of A.D. wet cells cleared by them during the period from 1-3-1982 to 30-6-1982 under Rule 9(2) of the Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Power Control and Appliances Co. and Another Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad120
ORDER1. The above applications are filed by the applicant/plaintiff, viz., the Power Control and Appliances Company, against both the respondents herein, under Order 14, Rule-8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order 39, Rules-1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking the relief of adinterim injunction to be passed against both the respondents herein, their servants, agents and men from manufacturing selling and advertising for sale of any electric mixer machine for kitchen use, using the trade mark of the applicant, 'SUMEET' in any way adopting such design deceptively similar in phonetic and visual aspects of the registered trade mark, 'SUMEET' by way of committing the infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff in their artistic work, containing in Document Nos. 1 to 3 filed along with the plaint by distributing, printing or causing to be printed the work as found in Document Nos. 4, 5 and 6 or printing, distributing and selling in any other manner infringing plaintiff's copyri...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank, Madras Vs. Sukra Shoe Fabric and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad293
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under O. 14, R. 8 of the Original Side Rules read with O. 38, R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the relief of attachment before judgment of the immovable properties more fully described in the judge's summons till the disposal of the suit.2. The facts in brief as culled out form the affidavit filed in support of the application are as follows :On granting the various agreed facilities to the first respondent herein in running a shoe fabric company, the first respondent was highly irregular and the terms and conditions of the credit facilities extended to him, were not adhered and because of the huge outstanding, the present suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,06,376.85 and that since the plant 'A' schedule immovable properties have been charged in favour of the applicant by way of creating an equitable mortgage and that the plaint 'B' schedule movables have been hypothecated, the applicant is enti...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. S.P. Loganathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad328
ORDERMishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has ordered for grant of probate of a will. One S. P. Shanmugha Mudaliar was a businessman in Madras. He executed a registered will on 26-5-1971 in the presence of witnesses making certain dispositions of his properties. On 2-12-1973 he executed a codicil under which he appointed the plaintiffs as the executors of the will. The plaintiffs/respondents then applied for probate. The eldest sonof Shanmugha, however, disputed the will. According to him, his father who was aged about 70 years at the relevant time, was suffering from cataract, kidney and heart trouble. The 1st plaintiff was looking after the business of the father who was solely dependent on him. The first plaintiff thus was in a position to dominate his father and was exercising undue influence and coercion. The will and the codicil, according to him, were executed by Shanmugha only under undue influence and coercion and not out of his own free will or consent or in a so...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Wires Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC49
Venkataswami, J.1. Except in T.C. No. 57 of 1991, in all other ten cases, the common question that arises for our consideration is, whether stainless steel wires are declared goods falling under entry 4(xv) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The question that arises for our consideration in T.C. No. 57 of 1991 is, whether stainless steel tube is an item of declared goods falling under item 4(xi) of the Second Schedule to the Act. 2. Before going into the questions as such, a small preface is necessary. The Revenue as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal seem to have taken different views at different stages on the above questions. The Tribunal, in T.A. Nos. 574 and 583 of 1978 dated December 2, 1978, in T.A. No. 408 of 1986 dated October 31, 1988 and in T.A. No. 90 of 1986, etc., dated March 10, 1989, has taken the view that stainless steel wires are declared goods, while in T.A. No. 1919 of 1983, etc., dated April 2...
Tag this Judgment!N. Balasubramanian Vs. V. Chitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC423
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Pursuant to the office note the abovesaid C.R.P.S.R. is posted before us regarding its maintainability.2. The abovesaid proceedings by the husband is against the order in I. A. No. 732 of 1991, granting interim maintenance Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending the main litigation viz. O.P. 758 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court filed by the respondent-wife for dissolving the marriage between the said parties on the ground of cruelty.3. This proceeding is sought to be filed Under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. No doubt Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has undergone change by virtue of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Central Act No. 59 of 1991) and the said amendment has come into force on 28.12.1991. But the said amendment does not in any way alter the abovesaid Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act. The said Sub-Section (1) while providing that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order of a Family...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sivaraman and Others Vs. Egmore Benefit Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas198(Mad)
Arumugham, J.1. The applicants/plaintiffs have filed this application under Order 14, rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the respondent/first defendant, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from holding any extraordinary general body meeting either on April 2, 1991, of any other date, in pursuance of notice dated March 7, 1991, on the subject noted in the notice dated March 7, 1991, pending disposal of the above suit. 2. The short facts which are culled out from the affidavit, filed in support of the application, are as follows: The applicants/plaintiff herein are the shareholders of the respondent/first defendant company which is more that 100 year old, having been incorporated under the Companies Act and that the applicants had been directors of the respondent at the annual general body meeting held on December 24, 1990, and that since then onwards, they are functioning as the director...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »