Chennai Court January 1993 Judgments
Limenaph Chemicals Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC79; 1993(68)ELT77(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 31-1-1989 passed by the second respondent in the petition. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of a product marketed in the brand name 'Janatha Cem'. According to the petitioner, it is a kind of cement obtained by heating limestone and charcoal in a kiln. As per the affidavit of the petitioner, the product was being cleared as Sagol under Tariff Item No. 23 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood till it was replaced by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner has also availed of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 5/1970 dated 31-1-1970. The Notification exempted 'cement commonly known as Sagol and obtained by heating limestone and burn coal in a kiln' from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. In 1976, sample of the petitioner's product was drawn by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rajapalyam...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Colour Labs Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT399(Mad)
ORDER1. In these writ petitions common questions are raised challenging the orders passed by customs authorities on the basis that Tariff Heading 98.01 does not apply to the photographic machinery imported by the petitioners in view of the definition of 'industrial plant' in the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 which came into force on April 3, 1986. In three of the writ petitions which were filed in 1986 long before the other petitions were filed, some additional contentions are advanced resting on an interpretation of the said Regulations and the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 2. The three writ petitions filed in 1986, are at the instance of the same person with reference to the same import. The petitioner is a partnership ..... manufacture of colour film, processing and printing and enlargement of the same as a Small Scale Industry. It placed an order for import of two mini colour laboratories from Japan, one for their factory in Madras and the other for their branch in Madurai a...
Tag this Judgment!Dass Colour Lab Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC243
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these writ petitions common questions are raised challenging the orders passed by customs authorities on the basis that tariff heading 98.01 does not apply to the photographic machinery imported by the petitioners in view of the definition of 'industrial plant' in the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 which came into force on April 3,1986. In three of the writ petitions which were filed in 1986 long before the other petitions were filed, some additional contentions are advanced resting on an interpretation of the said Regulations and the doctrine of promissory estoppel.2. The three writ petitions filed in 1986, are at the instance of the same person with reference to the same import. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on manufacture of colour film processing and printing and enlargement of the same as a Small Scale Industry. It placed an order for import of two mini colour laboratories from Japan, one for their factory in Madras and the other for the...
Tag this Judgment!C. Padma and ors. Vs. the Deputy Secretary to the Government (Ex-offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ628
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari mandamus to call for the records of the notifications issued in G.O.R. No. 1392, Industries, Labour and Co-operation (Industries), dated 18.9.1992 on the file of the first respondent herein and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 17.10.1962 and quash the same, directing the respondents herein to hand over vacant possession of the land of an extent of 1.47 acres covered and comprised in Survey No. 843 bearing Patta No. 322, situate in Madhavaram village, Chingleput district to the petitioner herein. 2. It seems that certain lands were sought to be acquired for Reichhold Chemicals India Ltd., for the manufacture of synthetic resins and accordingly they were acquired in the year 1962, when the father of the petitioners herein was alive. After the death of the father of the petitioners herein, in the year 1985, the petitioners herein seem to have written a letter in the year 1992 to...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendrakumar Verma, Etc. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2590
ORDER1. Petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavits filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus, Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Madras, under S. 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 in respect of H.C.P. Nos. 326 and 329 of 1992 and under S. 3(1)(iii) of the said Act in respect of H.C.P. No. 328 of 1992. In respect of H.C.P. No. 326 and 329 of 1992, the clamping of detention order was with a view to prevent the detenus from abetting the smuggling of goods and in respect of H.C.P. No. 328 of 1992, the clamping of detention order was with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The goods involved are gold biscuits with foreign markings. 2. As the three detenus were said to be connected with the seized gold and in view of certain common ...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. C.R. Srinivas, Social Worker and Public Interest Litigant Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ100
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to effect the correct spelling in English language against the age-old customary one, towards the name of our language and State, which remains as 'Tamil' and 'Tamil Nadu' as 'Tamizh' and 'Tamizh Nadu' including the change of the name of this High Court as 'Tamizh Nadu High Court' instead of the Madras High Court forthwith in the interest of the principles of literalism and for the glorification of the ancient language, State and High Court. 2. The petitioner appearing as party-in-person has filed this writ petition staling that it is filed in the interest of Tamizh masses. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the State was re-named from the original name of Madras State by the then Chief Minister late Dr. C.N. Annadurai in the year 1967, but the spelling of the name in English language remains unaltered and its pronunciation as 'Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Television Producers Chambers of Commerce and Another Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad300
ORDER1. The prayer in W.P. No. 1251of 1993 is as follows :'..... to issue a writ of certiorified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the scheme of licensing the time slot for Metro (II) Channel as announced in the press dated 17-1-1993 in 'The Hindu' and the application form along with these guidelines and quash the same and forbear the respondents herein from proceeding with the above scheme .....'2. The prayer in W.P. No. 1317 of 1993 is as follows :'.... to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the second respondent's scheme for telecast of programme provided by outside private parties on Doordarshan Metro Channel as notified in 'The Hindu' dated 17th January, 1993 and quash the scheme and consequently direct the respondents to frame a fresh scheme in accordance with law ....'3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1251 of 1993 claims that he is the General Secretary of the Association whose members are producers of various Television programme...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Shyamsunder Sah Vs. Sumitra Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC300; (1993)IMLJ622
Pratap Singh, J.1.This appeal is against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988, in which the learned District Judge, Chengalpet, has reversed the finding of the Trial Court in H.M.O.P. No. 53 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.2. The short facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner had filed a petition under Sections 5(iii), 11 and 12(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties is null and void on the ground that the respondent was a minor on the date of marriage, that the consent of the guardian was not obtained and on the ground that the respondent was an impotent person at the time of marriage. The petition was opposed by the respondent and after enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same the respondent has filed C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988 before the learned District Judge, Chengalpet. On a consideration of the materials before him, the learned District Judge has fo...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chelliah Nadar (Died) and ors. Vs. Periasami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ272
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff before the trial Court. He instituted the suit for specific performance on the basis of Ex.A-1 the agreement dated 16.1.1973 entered with Matticka Naicker the first defendant (since deceased). His case is that he is carrying on joint family business under the name and style of Chelliah Nadar and sons. The first defendant acting for himself and on behalf of his wife and the second defendant (since deceased) entered into an agreement with him under Ex.A-1 for the sale of the premises bearing Door No. 4, Kalmandapam Road, Royapuram, Madras for Rs. 57,000 on 16.1.1973. So far the first defendant had received Rs. 22,000 as advance. As per the agreement the appellant who is in occupation of a portion of the house was authorised to receive rents from the other two tenants in the building. Under the terms of the agreement the balance of the purchase money has to be paid and sale deed registered within 11 months from that date. However, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Ammal Vs. Shanmughavadivammal, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad234; (1993)IIMLJ424
ORDERThe 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal against the concurrent decree for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-with a charge over the property in question, given by both the Courts below. 2. The undisputed facts are : The plaintiff borrowed from defendants 2 to 4 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and as security for the repayment of the said sum, usufructuarily mortgaged his properly under Ex. A1 dated 14-8-1967 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. Subsequently, the plaitiff sold the said property under Ex. A1 dated 28-5-1969 to the 1st defendant for Rs. 8,000/-. Though the sale consideration therefor was Rs. 8,000/ -, the plaintiff received from the 1st defendant only Rs. 3,000/- and allowed the 1st defendant to retain the balance of Rs. 5,000/- for redeeming Ex. Al mortgage. Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed O.S. No. 105 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli for redemption of the said mortgage, claiming that the mortgaged was deemed to have been discharged under Tamil Nadu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »