Chennai Court September 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.
R. Arumugasamy Vs. the Divisional Development Officer, Cheranmahadevi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ325
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. These two writ petitions are connected. They relate to the same matter. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7591 of 1992 is a permanent resident and native of Kudankulam village which falls within the jurisdiction of Radhapuram Panchayat Union. He has filed the writ petition in the interest of all the residents of the village. Under the Rural Water Supply Scheme, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board installed an overhead tank for the benefit of the villagers in 1988. The village is generally a drought prone area and the villagers have to walk for 4 to 5 Kms. to fetch water for drinking and bathing. When the tank was installed after the great efforts of the villagers, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply/and Drainage Board imposed a condition when handing over charge of the tank to the Panchayat that no individual house service connection should be given. The tank is installed with a capacity of 1,00,000 litres. 35 water tapes were also installed in the village to suppl...
Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC161
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The main writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties and heard.2. The first petitioner is a private limited company and the second petitioner is a shareholder and director of the said company. The petitioners are manufacturers of dying equipments and have their factory at Kup District, Sangrur (Punjab). They are using stainless steel for the manufacture of their products and as it is cheaper, they buy seconds and detectives rather than prime stainless steel for use in their factory. They placed an order with Flotec Co., Ltd., Taiwan for the supply of 60 M.T. of seconds/defective stainless steel seamless tubes/pipes. The suppliers despatched a quantity of 58.808 M.T. on board the ship Stamfort V-41W. The agreed price was $ 1170 per Metric Tonne. As per the invoice dated 14.5.1992, the petitioners were charged with 68,805.36 U.S. $. The goods arrived on board the feeder ship Tiger Bridge on 30.5.1992 due to transhipment, under cover of bill of lading No. 5...
M/S. Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. the Chief Inspector of Boilers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad89
ORDER1. The Writ Petition and Writ Miscellaneous Petition corning on for orders as to admission and for orders on this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and the Counter affidavit filed therein and the Writ Miscellaneous Petition and the orders of this Court dated 17-6-1992, 1-7-92 and 30-7-1992 and made in W.P. No. 6870 of 1992 and W.M.P. No. 9837 of 1992 and 1-9-1992 and made in WMP No. 16053/92 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Raghavachari Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. V. R. Rajasekharan Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents in both the Petitions. The Court made the following Order.The Writ Petition has to be allowed on a very short ground. The order of the second respondent was passed on 5-5-1992 and communicated to the petitioner. It made a reference to a letter dated 30-3-1992 and called upon the petitioner to remove the boiler, pipes etc. within the time specified. According to ...
Balakrishnan Vs. the State by Special Police Establishment Madras Bran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1258
1. The accused in C.C. No. 11 of 1986 on the file of the learned Special Judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), Tiruchirapalli is the appellant. He was charged for offences under Section 161 IPC and under section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was found guilty, convicted under section 161 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under section 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences were however directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 25 and M.Os. 1 to 6. The accused was the Chief Catering Inspector, Southern Railway, Trichy Division at Trichy. The charge against the accused is that on 6-3-1986 at 9.30 a.m. he had accepted a sum of Rs. ...
ibrahim Ismail Vs. Superintendent of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC155; 1993(65)ELT174(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a petition for issue of a Writ of Declaration that the proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, providing for giving of notice referred to in clause (a) and representation referred to in clause (b) of the said section, to be oral at the request of the person concerned is unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. There are two other prayers which are consequential. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail as the only question to be considered relates to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of confiscation and imposition of penalty passed by the Second respondent on 29-6-1992. 2. Section 124 of the Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' is in the following terms :- 'No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of th...
Shencottah Municipality by Its Commissioner and anr. Vs. Shencottah Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ127
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against an order passed allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for permission to sue on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other tax payers.2. The plaintiffs' case is that there are about 5000 house tax payers in Shencottah Municipality. The first defendant Municipality has for the two half years of 1990-91 and the first half year of 1991-92 enhanced the house tax for all the houses in the municipality without any basis and arbitrarily. The defendants have levied and collected enhanced tax against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gundur Municipality v. Gundur Municipal Tax Payers Association : [1971]2SCR423 and also against Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1990, from the second half year of 1987-88. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the defendants have no right to levy enhanced tax from the first half year of 1990-91 and for injunction restraining them from collecting such enhance...
Selvi Travels and Etc. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad216
ORDER1. These two writ petitions are for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to Circular No. 26(1) AD/92 dated 24-7-1992 issued by the Passport Officer, Thiruchirapalli and quash the same. The petitioner in W.P. 10619 of 1992 is aproprietary concern running a Travel Agency while the petitioner in W.P. 10914 of 1992 is a registered association of recognised travel agents. The impugned circular which is circulated to all recognised travel agenls reads thus :--'Government of India has decided to withdraw with immediate effect the entire system of recognising Travel Agents to deal with passport matters. With immediate effect all the Travel Agents will be free to deposit application forms at passport offices like any other individual. The completed passports will be despatched to the applicant at the address given in the application form by Registered Post acknowledgment due or they will be handed over to the applicant himself. No completed passport will handed ov...
Mustaffa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC192
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 12.3.1992 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (as amended) (Central Act 52 of 1974) with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods.2. The facts insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition can be briefly stated as follows:--On 1.1.1992 the detenu who travelled in the name of Kader Mohideen Kasim holding Indian Passport bearing No. H.150670 issued at Madras, arrived from Singapore, by Singapore Airlines Flight, carrying two pieces of hand baggage, namely, one DAI-ICHI TRADING multi colour polythene bag and one BALRIN blue colour hand bag, at the Madras Airport. The detenu declared to the Superintendent of Customs that he did not have gold/silver/VCR/CGP/TV a...
M.A.A. Mahab and anr. Vs. Jayams Engineering and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ232
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlord/petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the ground floor of the building in No. 138, Thambu Chetty Street, comprises of an area of 2,547 sq.ft. and it has been let out to the respondent for non-residential purposes. The agreed rent is Rs. 1,200 per mensem. The landlord claimed Rs. 16,516 as fair rent. The Rent Controller held that the area of the ground floor in the occupation of the respondent is only 2,356 sq.ft. He fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,861 per mensem. On appeal, the Appellate Authority increased it to Rs. 4,055 per mensem. A revision was filed by the respondent in this Court in C.R.P. No. 2355 of 1991. It was dismissed in limine on 27.9.1991.2. The landlord has challenged the same order of the Appellate Authority in this revision petition. The main objection raised by the petitioner is that in the matter of calculating the cost of construction of ...
Saraswathi Alias Sasikala Vs. Syed Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ321
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlady is as under: She purchased the petition premises from one Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 25.6.1986. The petition premises is having three Door numbers namely 7,8 and 9. For Door No. 7 the monthly rent is Rs. 100 and for Door Nos. 8 and 9 the monthly rent is Rs. 100. The tenant is using the entire premises as a godown. The husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. The landlady is looking after her household work. Both the husband and wife now desire to start a mess in the petition premises. They are having sufficient means to start the mess. The landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. Hence the landlady required the petition premises for conducting a mess under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »