Chennai Court August 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Moulana Basha Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1545
ORDER1. Petitioner Maulana Basha was the sole accused in C.C. No. 430 of 1987 of the file of the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Poonamallee. The charge against him was under S. 4(i)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with S. 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act. During the pendency of the prosecution, the petitioner was called upon to face a departmental enquiry in P.R. No. 55 of 1987. The trial Magistrate had framed charges against the petitioner and the matter was constantly being adjourned for the production of prosecution witnesses. On 4th May, 1988, the Inspector of Police, Poonamallee who had filed the final report against the petitioner, forwarded a copy of the case diary to the trial Magistrate, along with a copy of the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpatta East District in R.C. No. C1/15138/88, dated 16-2-1988. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpatta East had ordered as follows : 'After careful perusal of the C.D. files of the cases shown ...
L. Subbian Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ174
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of the parties. Mr. T.S. Gopalan has stated that he has filed vakalat today for the second respondent.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a certiorarified mandamus calling for the concerned records of the first respondent in TNSE Case No. 1 of 1989 and quash the order made therein with a consequential direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits. The petitioner was employed for more than 35 years in the second respondent-company as a Supervisor drawing a salary of Rs. 2,075 per mensem. On 1.11.1988 the second respondent stated that the management had changed hands and the services of the petitioner were no longer required. The petitioner protested stating that he was entitled to continue in service till attained the age of 58 years. But his services were terminated by oral orders from 1.11.1988. Against the oral order of termination, the petitioner sent a letter on 2.12.1988 and dema...
Seetharaman Vs. Vaduvambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ175
ORDERMaruthamuthu, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is his wife, The revision petitioner filed the petition H.M.O.P. No. 83 of 1987 under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying for a decree for divorce against the respondent. The revision petitioner alleged in his petition that the marriage between him and the respondent took place at Panrution 19.8.1983 and the respondent was not ordinarily and continuously living with the revision petitioner subsequent to the marriage and had chosen to live with her parents after deserting the revision petition and that the panchayat convened for the purpose of settlement became in vain. The revision petitioner has added that he filed H.M.O.P. No. 667 of 1985 for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained an ex parte decree on 23.4.1987 and that the even thereafter the respondent had refused to go and live with the revision petitioner. After exhausting th...
S.P. Dhandapani Pondicherry Vs. the State Transport Authority and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad44
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed theabove writ petition to call for the records inF.No. TD/TP.1/11/92 dated 4-3-1992 on thefile of the 1st respondent and quash the sameand for any other appropriate order ordirection.2. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the fact that his permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam was directed to be renewed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, the 1st respondent, in spite of his repeated requests, did not make the necesssary endorsement of the said renewal in his stage carriage permit effecting the renewal from 4-1-1988 to 4-1-1993. According to the writ petitioner, his permitalone for the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry is covered by the Inter-State agreement for the portions lying within the limits of Union Territory of Pondicherry. But, suddenly, by proceedings dated 4-3-1992, the 1st respondent, purporting to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, in M.V. ...
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC102; 1992(62)ELT705(Mad); (1993)IMLJ128
Somasundaram, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in W.P. No. 6260 of 1987 directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 16,59,721.30 with interest at 12% p.a. from 23-6-1987 to the respondent within four weeks from 8-1-1991. 2. The respondent herein is a manufacturer of Service Station equipments. The first appellant in his order dated 30-8-1983 confirmed the earlier order passed by his predecessor and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,15,502.57 towards the differential duty for the period from 10-1-1979 to 31-3-1980. As against the said order of the first appellant, the respondent filed an appeal before the third appellant and by his order dated 19-11-1083, the third appellant set aside the order of the first appellant dated 30-8-1983 and remanded the matter to the first appellant with a direction to approve the price-list based on the sales value at the factory gate under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter called the Act). Pursuant to the order...
Vaikundam Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 3) (Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR597(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner before us.2. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer determined the taxable income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83 at Rs. 46,33,021, and levied a tax of Rs. 30,11,463.65. Aggrieved against the rejection of some of the deductions claimed, the petitioner pursued the matter before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. The said appellate authority allowed the appeal in part and gave relief in respect of some of the claims made. Not satisfied with the quantum of relief granted by the first appellate authority, the matter has been further pursued before the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, The Tribunal gave some more relief. Aggrieved against the disallowed items claimed on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal, the above tax revision case has been filed.3. Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confined his submissions and claims in respect of four items of dedu...
Thangamma Chacko and ors. Vs. Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC1
Mishra. J.1. This appeal has come to us for a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal under which the statutory appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, was dismissed on the ground that it was presented after the expiry of the period of limitation.2. Although we have to deal with the limited question whether the view taken by the learned single Judge and the Tribunal that the appeal was barred by limitation is correct or not, we may take notice of a few facts which show the circumstances under which the appeal was preferred. Messrs. K.J. Chacko Structural Engineering Works at Visakapatnam were assessed to excise duty of Rs. 99,919-30 on 111.6999 KTS of steel structurals valued at Rs. 6,66,128-65 fabricated and removed during the period from 1-3-1986 to 6-3-1989 under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. One K.B. Chacko (since...
Rajammal and Others Etc. Vs. State by D.S.P. Cb. C.i.D., Madras and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3029; II(1994)DMC503
1. While the first accused Rajammal and the third accused Murugesan in S.C. No. 2 of 1986 ion the file of the District Judge, Chengalapattu are the appellants in C.A. 729 of 1986, the Public Prosecutor has preferred C.A. No. 800 of 1989 to set aside the order of acquired of second accused Balasubramaniam and forth accused Asokan and convict them for the offences with which they were charged. Crl.r.C. No. 246 of 1987 is by P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam against the judgment of the trail Court acquitting the accused 2 and 4. 2. Fourth Accused Asokan is the husband of deceased Uma Porkodi. Their marriage took place on 24-3-1985. Third accused Murugesan and first accused Rajammal are the parents of the fourth accused Asokan. Second accused Balasubramaniam is the younger brother of the fourth accused. They were charged before the trail court under four heads. The first charge against accused 1 to 3 under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was that on 18-6-1986 at about 10.00 a.m. in furtherance of their...
Varalakshmi Chemind Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Prohibition and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ205
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner abovenamed has filed the main writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st respondent culminated in Proceedings Rc. No. D2/12184/91-15, dated 29.4.1992 and quash the same. While admitting the writ petition, this Court in W.M.P. No. 9519 of 1992 issued interim directions to the 1st respondent to allot 50,000 litres of rectified spirit without any further delay to the petitioner company to have the trial run of their plant and machinery become operational by June, 1992, as ordered by the Government in Letter No. 6979/P and EIII/91-2, dated 12.6.1991, pending disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed W.M.P. No. 11856 of 1992 to clarify the order dated 5.5.1992 in W.M.P. No. 9519 of 1992 and this Court on 29.6.1992 clarified the same. The respondents have filed W.M.P. Nos. 15082 and 15083 of 1992 to vacate the interim direction and also the clarification issued by this Court in W.M.P. Nos. 9519 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›