Chennai Court May 1992 Judgments
Leather India and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC117
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Both the writ petitions raise a common question with regard to the validity of Export Trade Control Order No. E(C)/0.88/AM(91) dated 5-8-1991. 2. W.P. No. 15560 of 1991 is filed by the manufacturers of leather who manufacture the same for thepurpose of export to foreign countries. W.P. No. 1312 of 1992 is filed by an Association comprisingof members in the business of leather as leather tanners, manufacturers and exporters. Insofar as thefacts are common in both these writ petitions and the question raised in both the writ petitions isalso based purely on the point of law, I think suffice it to refer to the pleadings in the writ petitionNo. 15560 of 1991. 3. The petitioners are the manufacturers of leather for the purpose of export to foreign countriesand they are manufacturers of leather in small scale and are also tanners. They export finishedleather to foreign countries, particularly to United States of America, United Kingdom, and certainother European cou...
Tag this Judgment!S. Varadarajan Vs. Venkateswara Solvent Extraction (P.) Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas693(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ130
Lakshmanan, J.1. The first petitioner, S. Varadarajan, in the main company petition is the applicant in Company Application No. 602 of 1992. He filed the above application for an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent, M. Sekaran, from holding the extraordinary general meeting on April 23, 1992, or any other adjourned date pending disposal of the main company petition. 2. This application was opposed by all the respondents. Elaborate arguments were heard be me on April 21, 1992. Since the meeting was to be held on April 23, 1992, at 4 p.m. and having regard to the urgency of the matter, I passed an interim order on April 22, 1992, which is reproduced as under : 'Elaborate and lengthy arguments were advanced by counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the respective respondents and very many decisions have been referred to in respect of the respective contentions. Since the meting is to be held on April 23, 1992, at 4 p.m. it will not be possible for this...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kamala Dakshinamurthi and ors. Vs. Board of Trustees Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ604
Lakshmanan, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 have filed the above suit in a representative capacity after obtaining necessary permission from this Court under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Appln. No. 2219 of 1989, this Court granted permission to the 3rd applicant viz., the 3rd plaintiff to prosecute the suit on behalf the applicants and also those applicants who are jointly interested in the relief, whose names have been mentioned in the plaint. The order has been passed on 3.5.1989 and this Court directed notice by way. of publication in one issue of Malai Malar. Accordingly, publication has been effected. Thereafter, the plaint has been presented.2. The 1st defendant is the Board of Trustees of Srinagar Colony represented by its Executive Trustee R. Butchi. Defendants 2 to 6 are the trustees and the 7th defendant is the Corporation of Madras represented by its Commissioner.3. The 1st defendant Board of Trustees is a body constituted under a decree dated 18.7.1969 in C.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Partners of Satyanarayana and Company Vs. the Official Assignee and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ634
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. Application No. 348 of 1989 was filed by the petitioners in Insolvency Petition No. 9 of 1989, who were adjudicated as insolvents on their own petition to direct the Official Assignee to deliver the key of the shop to them so as to enable them to resume their business in No. 30/2, Godown Street, Madras-1.2. Application No. 224 of 1989 was filed by B. Vedachalam who is the owner of the premises No. 30/2, Godown Street, Madras to direct the Official Assignee to remove the movables that are available in the premises and deliver vacant possession of the above premises occupied by the first and second respondents (insolvents/tenants) the applicants in Application No. 224 of 1989. The short facts are:Mr. B. Vedachalam is the owner of the premises No. 30/2, Godown Street, Madras-1. The petitioners in Application No. 348 of 1989 and in Insolvency Petition No. 9 of 1989 are the partners of M/s. Satyanarayana and Company. They were carrying on the business in the above prem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›