Chennai Court August 1992 Judgments
Ms. Dhanam and Another Vs. District Magistrate and Collector of North ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1716
ORDER as per Annexure 'A' was a mere formal recital of S. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, showing the provision of law under which the order of detention has been made. Although the section of the COFEPOSA has not been mentioned in the last but two paragraphs of the 'grounds', it has been stated that the detenu engaged himself 'in smuggling goods and that there is sufficient cause to pass detention order against you with a view to preventing your from smuggling goods', which was in Gujarati. It cannot, therefore, be said that the detenu was in any way handicapped in submitting his representation, or there has been any violation of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.' It is clear from the above decision that the order of detention was only a mere formal recital of S. 3(1) of the Act showing the provision of law under which the order of detention has been made and if the grounds of detention was served along with the detention order and the grounds of detention contained the subjective satisfaction it...
Tag this Judgment!Jeeva Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ350Mad; (1993)IMLJ337
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner against the second respondent herein, who is a driver, for act of misconduct. According to the petitioner, the second respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident whereby two persons were killed and one person was seriously injured. According to the second respondent, the accident took place not on account of any negligence on his part but when he was driving the bus along the left side of the road a buffalo crossed the road all of a sudden and he applied the brakes in order to avert dashing against it At that time, a motorcyclist and a scooterist, who were coming in the opposite direction, were riding their vehicles rashly and negligently and when the buffalo hit against the motor cyclist, he fell down and he was caught under the bus. The buffalo's horn was broken and fell on...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendravarman Vs. Ramani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ202
Arumugham, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Madras in M.C. 160 of 1990 dated 16-11-1990 directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the first respondent and Rs. 100/- to the second respondent. 2. The case of the respondents who are the petitioners in M.C. 160 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras claiming maintenance from the appellant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as culled out from the petition filed in that Court are extracted in brief as follows : The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent took place at Thiruverkadu on 30-11-1987 in accordance vedic rites and caste custom and that thereafter both the appellant and the first respondent lived together at the residence of the respondents herein for a period of 1 1/2 years. As a result of the said wedlock the second respondent was born to them and that on t...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and anr. Vs. Rashi Leather ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC101; 1991(55)ELT10(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order made in WP. Nos. 4683/84 and 10162/84 allowing both the writ petitions (printed infra). The respondent herein has filed WP. No. 4683/84 for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to issue an additional import licence to the extent of Rs. 28,27,770/- for the year 79-80 and Rs. 24,15,305/- for the year 1980-81. WP. No. 10162/84 was filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.9.1984 cancelling the Export House Certificate dated 1.5.80 granted in favour of the respondent.2. The respondent, a private limited company is a manufacturer of finished leather, leather garments and leather goods. The respondent also exports finished leather and leather goods manufactured by it as well as leather goods purchased by it from other manufacturers. Under the Import Policy of the Government of India for the period April 1979 to March 1980, a person wh...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C. Krishnasamy and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR909(Mad)
Srinivasan J.1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 12777 of 1992 is the husband and the petitioner in W. P. No. 12778 of 1992 is the wife. Both of them are practising the medical profession. They got a plot of land at Erode from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and started construction of a nursing home at the plot at a cost of Rs. 7,74,000. The construction was commenced in the year 1984 and was completed in 1986. The petitioners filed returns periodically stating that they were meeting the cost of construction from the savings out of the income earned from the profession. There was a survey by the income-tax officials at the nursing home, and at that time it was found that there were other incomes which had not been disclosed. The petitioners then put forward a case that they got those monies by obtaining loans from relatives who were agriculturists. But they were not able to prove the same. According to the petitioners, it was suggested that they could file revised returns and, accordingly, th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Santhanakrishnan Vs. Corpn. of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1214Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges a communication sent by the first respondent to the petitioner instructing him to issue notice to the Government for orders on his request for voluntary retirement since the earlier notice sent by the petitioner was not a notice sent by the petitioner was not a notice in terms of Fundamental Rule 56(3)(a). 2. The facts relating to the filing of the writ petition are : The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on February 16, 1957 by the first respondent-Corporation. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk/Licence Inspector on August 13, 1959, as Assessor on January 4, 1967 and as Assistant Revenue Officer on May 30, 1979, as Additional Revenue Officer on October 5, 1989 and as Circle Officer on February 1, 1990. The petitioner was promoted as Revenue Officer on June 1, 1990. The normal date of superannuation for the petitioner will be November 2, 1992 since he was born on November 2, 1934. However, the petitioner is entitled to hold office t...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.R. Sons Charitable Trust Vs. the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Mun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ154
Ratnam, J.1. This writ appeal at the instance of S.N.R. Sons Charitable Trust, Coimbatore, has -been preferred against the dismissal of W.P. No. 9701 of 1983, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the respondent relating to the notice of demand in Assessment No. 60511, dated 30.9.1983 in Ref. No. 71240/82/A.7 and quash the said notice of demand relating to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore, run by the Appellant trust. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the writ petition, it was stated that after the formation of the trust on 9.2.1970 and in accordance with the terms of the Deed of Trust, the appellant has been running Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Sri Ramakrishna Children's School, etc., and that the hospital was started in 1974. It was also stated that prior to the coming into force of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant sought exemption from payme...
Tag this Judgment!B. Vasanthi Vs. Bakthavatchalu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad322
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondent herein to produce the bodies of the minor children, Master Karthi and Miss Lavenya, before this court and hand over them to the petitioner.2. The averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are briefly as follows:-- The petitioner and the first respondent got married on 14-11-1980. She gave birth to one male child by name Master Karthik now aged about 10 years and a female child by name Miss Lavanya now aged about 7 years. It is further alleged that the first respondent is working as clearing agent in the Madras Harbour. He had illicit intimacy with some girl friends and planned to have a second marriage at the instigation of his parents, who also made arrangements for the second marriage of the first respondent. It is further alleged that the first respondent used to return home in a drunken stale and beat the petitioner brutally and if ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore Ii Division and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC27
Venkataswami, J.1. When the writ appeal came up for admission, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Counsel, took notice for the respondent. By consent, the writ appeal itself has been taken up for final disposal, and learned Counsel for the parties were heard.2. This writ appeal is filed against the final order in Writ Petition No. 7211 of 1984. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of remand in the writ petition. According to the learned Judge, the respondent was not given an opportunity to distinguish its manufacturing process from that of the process adopted by Messrs. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Company Limited. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that it has applied the principles Said down by its in Messrs. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Company Ltd., to the facts of the respondent's case. The grievance of the respondent was that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Messrs. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Company Ltd., will not apply to the facts of this case, because the manufacturing process...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi Apartments, Unit of Mig. Flats and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ161
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from recovering or enforcing the demand towards alleged difference by way of final cost and tentative cost of M.I.G. flats with respect to the members of the petitioner's associations whose names are set out in the schedules to the petitions. The members of the associations were allotted middle income group flats in 1979-80. With respect to the petitioner association in W.P. No. 7061 of 1986 the allotment letter was issued on 23.3.1980. Tentative cost was fixed at Rs. 42,200 for ground floor and first floor and Rs. 40,100 for the second floor. Clause 9 of the letter which is the crucial clause reads thus:Final cost of the flat will be intimated within a period of 3 years. The difference of cost if any is to be paid in one lump sum or in monthly instalment from the beginning.It is only in 1986 the respondents demanded additional payment from the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »