Chennai Court July 1992 Judgments
N. Paramasivam Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas636(Mad); (1993)IMLJ284
Srinivasan, J.1. Though in our view the reference to the Full Bench is unnecessary in this case, we have proceeded to hear the appeal, as the entire case is placed before us. We have also taken into account the fact that the parties would be put to unnecessary hardship if we return the reference. 2. The appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,10,000 from the first respondent-Corporation for the purchase of a lorry to be plied as a public carrier with a national permit. The loan was sanctioned subject to the terms and conditions specified and the appellant accepted the same. The entire loan was disbursed in three instalments as follows : Rs. P.1. 5-3-1987 1,71,500.002. 13-3-1987 28,564.253. 24-4-1987 9,935.75 3. The amount was to be repaid in 50 monthly instalments commencing after three months from the date of the first disbursement. A schedule of repayment was stipulated in the sanction order as follows : Rs.First 10 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,600 46,000Next 10 monthly instalments of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!English Electric Company of India Limited Vs. the Assistant Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC72
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner is a public limited company having a factory at Pallavaram, Madras. It is an assessee on the files of the first respondent. It manufactures relays, switches, control panels, CFS Units, OHBB, etc. For some of its products, it is filing Part I price list under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules adopting valuation in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. For other goods, the petitioner has been invoking the exemption under Rule 173-C(11) of the Rules. Prior to the passing of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, those goods were classified as TI 68 goods. From 1975 to 1986, the respondents were permitting the petitioner to clear such goods on payment of excise duty based on invoice value in terms of notification 120/75 dated 30.4.1975. After the new Act came into force, the petitioner applied to the Department on 20.3.1986 and 9.4.1986 seeking permission to clear goods on payment...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappan Vs. Hazrathunnissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ605
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlady filed a petition for eviction under Section 3(4)(a)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, Act 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein in respect of the land belonging to the respondent in Survey No. 505/92. The tenant had taken the land on lease from the Predecessor-in-interest of the present landlady for agricultural purpose, particularly, for cultivation of paddy. The present annual rent payable by the tenant to the landlady is Rs. 2,5(X)and six salugais of paddy. According to the landlady, the rent is payable in every month of Thai. On 4.2.1987 the tenant sent a draft for Rs. 3,500 to the landlady along with a letter. In the letter it was slated that the rent of Rs. 3,500 was sent to the landlady, but the landlady refused to receive the same and returned the draft along with her letter. In the said letter, she has slated that two years rent is due from...
Tag this Judgment!N. Babu Janardhanam Vs. Golden Films (P.) Ltd. and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1993)IMLJ10
Mishra, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a proceeding in Company Petition No. 30 of 1963. Since our judgment in O.S.A. No. 76 of 1985 is going to give to the appellant in O.S.A. No. 75 of 1985 an opportunity to have a say at the stage of confirmation of sale of the property in question we propose to deal with only the order in Application No. 768 of 1984 in Company Petition No. 30 of 1963. 2. Most of the facts are admitted on all sides and they only need a narration. Briefly stated, however, the facts are that by an order in Company Petition No. 30 of 1963, the Golden Films Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was directed to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator thereof. A sister concern of the Golden Films Private Limited by name Golden Studios Private Limited was also ordered to be bound up in Company Petition No. 8 of 1972. By an order dated December 23, 1976, a learned single judge of this court directed sale of 23 acres and 66 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarapandian and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3662
Arumugham, J. 1. All the four appellants were tried for the offence punishable under section 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. under the first charge and for offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. under second charge by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Trinelveli in Sessions Case No. 211 of 1984 on the allegation that on the night of 11-10-1983 near Tuticorin V.O. Chindambaranar College Students Hostel appellants 1 to 4 with the common intention of causing the death of one Rajendran son of Thangaraj Nadar of Briant Nagar, Tuticorin took him, murdered him by cutting and stabbing with deadly weapons and after committing the murder, with a view of escape from the punishment for the offence of murder separated the head of the deceased Rajendran from his body and buried the same in sand near Kamaraj College, Tuticorin. After elaborate trial, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty on both the charges and convicted and sentenced them to undergo i...
Tag this Judgment!Vajiram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3747
K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 4-11-1991 and set the petitioner at liberty. The petitioner at liberty. The petitioner came to the adverse notice as a bootlegger in view of the four cases mentioned in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore, the second respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Though the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Terminated Full Time Temporary Lic Employees Welfare Association Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Rev J. Stephen Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC551
Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of parties, the main writ petition it- self has been taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2-7-1991 and consequently to direct the respon- dents to issue marriage licence to the petitioner either under the Travancore Law or under Sections. 6 and 9 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.3. I have heard Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Shanmugham, Additional Government Pleader.4. The petitioner submits that he underwent the two years course of Theology and obtained a certificate of theology from Bible School at Pundur in. Kerala State and he was appointed as a Church worker in South India Assem- blies of God Church at Karingal. It is stated that after one year of service, the said South India Assemblies of God issued a worker certificate on 9-9-1981 and in the year 1982, he was ordanied as Minister of South India Assemblies of God and on...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. K. Textile Processing Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN91(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is engaged in the processing of unbleached grey cloth by bleaching, calendering, dyeing and printing so as to produce printed cloth. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which claim was rejected by the IAC who under section 144B directed the ITO to disallow the claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) granted that deduction. He did so following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-8 1. The revenue have appealed to the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : [1986]162ITR846(SC) and in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India : [1989]179ITR317(SC) Taxman 151.2. Before us, the learned senior counsel for the revenue submitted that in the light of the recent decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!D. Vaidyalingam Vs. Kuppuswamy Reddi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad105
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondent 3 and 4 to produce the minor children (male child Haribaskar, aged about 7 years, and female child Lavanya, aged about 5 years) before this Court and direct their custody to the petitioner.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: It is the admitted case of both parties that the petitioner's daughter Pustipalatha was married to one Dhandapani who is the son of respondents 1 and 2, on 12-12-1982. The petitioner's daughter died on 18-3-1988. Subsequently, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, W.P. No. 10945 of 1988, for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, this Court gave direction for admilting minor Haribaskar in Bala Mandir, Madras, till the question also who is entitled to custody of him is decided by competent civil Court. The petitioner filed O.P, No. 10...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »