Chennai Court January 1993 Judgments

M.M.K. Mohamed Ibrahim Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1993(42)ECC289

ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to restore and return the 1968 CJ.-4 Model Jeep bearing Registration No. MSQ 8308 having Serial No.67707, Engine No.680447 and Chassis No. C J.4-4-6804407 along with its stepney tyre as on the same condition when it was seized as per the mahazar dated 17.2.1977.2. Brief facts are the following:In the course of seizure of nine gunny bags of cloves from the pits of the 'thope' belonging to the petitioner, the jeep in question was also seized on 17.2.1977. In the adjudication proceedings, while the petitioner was relieved of his personal liability, the jeep was subjected to absolute confiscation by an order of the first Authority dated 14.12.1979. On appeal, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by its Order dated 13.6.1980, directed the release of the jeep on payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of confiscation. On further revision, ...

Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Cent ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1993(44)ECC247

ORDER1. The petitioner, aggrieved by an order of the second respondent dated 16.11.1988, declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal, has filed this writ petition.2. Brief facts are the following-The petitioner-Corporation is engaged in providing public transport. It has a workshop in which bodies are constructed on duty-suffered chassis. On and from 1.3.1986, the duty of excise was charged under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on bus body constructions. The petitioner was compelled to pay duty in respect of such construction activities with effect from 1.3.1986. The duty was paid on ad valorem basis including the cost of the chassis, even though the petitioner is constructing only the body. Be it noted, the chassis had already suffered duty. While so, a notification issued by the Department provided for exemption of the value of the chassis for computing the duty. As the petitioner had already paid duty on the full value for certain number of vehicles, claimed refund in te...

Ravi and Etc. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and Other

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1994CriLJ1486

Venkataswami, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners who have been detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as bootleggers, have challanged their detentions, and they pray for quashing the orders of detention and consequentially for their release. 2. Though number of points were raised in the affidavit as well as advanced before us, ultimately it was found that one common question of law survives for our detailed consideration. 3. The admitted facts are, the Detaining Authority, who is the same in both the cases, has stated in the grounds of detention that the individual to be detained in each case (petitioners herein) was on remand. This statement of fact finds a place in the paragraph of the detention order in which the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction as regards the compelling necessity to clamp orders of detention on the said individuals. It is again common ground that except the remand application, on order of remand as such passed by a Jud...

Kamakshi Vs. Minor Ramalingam Alias Munusami and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1993)2MLJ17

Abdul Hadi, J.1. The 3rd defendant, who was brought on record in the trial court as the legal representative of the 1st defendant, is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are respectively respondents 1 and 2 herein. The 2nd defendant is the alienee from the 1st defendant under Ex.B-1 sale deed, dated 27.5.1971. The plaintiff is one minor Ramalingam alias Munusami, by his next friend and mother Singarammal. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant who is his father, married the abovesaid Singarammal in 1966 and the suit property belongs to the family of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. On that footing the partition relief was claimed.2. But, the defence to the suit is that Singarammal is not the wife of the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant had only one wife by name Karuppayi and there was no marriage between the 1st defendant and Singarammal and so, the plaintiff is not the son of the 1st defendant and the suit has to be dismissed.3. ...

Ramamoorthy Vs. Thiru Murugan Commercial Finance Corporation by Its Pa ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1993)2MLJ122

Pratap Singh, J.1. This appeal in against the order of remand made in A.S. No. 34 of 1984 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the suit for money against one Krishnan and the appellant, arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 2645 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The claim is for Rs. 2,295. The first defendant was subsequently removed from the array of parties. The second defendant had resisted the claim. Inter alia, he had also claimed the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. After contest, the learned District Munsif had held that the second defendant is entitled to benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. In the appeal, the respondent has filed some more documents and prayed that they may be received as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. T...

Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab Through Its Secretary to Government P ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

(1) THE petitioners have sought a mandate to the respondents to appoint them against the vacancies of Lecturers reserved for the blind in the Education Department under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (2) THE undisputed facts, briefly are :-The petitioners are qualified for the post of Lecturer in different subjects. The State Government requisitioned the names of candidates through Employment Exchange to fill up 596 posts of Lecturers in different subjects in Government Schools in the State of Punjab. The Punjab Government issued instructions vide letter No. 10/23/w-Ed/ 10283, dated November 24, 1982 providing for the reservation of vacancies for the physically handicapped persons in class III and Class IV services of the State to be filled by direct recruitment. These instructions provided for 1 per cent posts for the blind. The Employment Exchange sponsored names of 5 blind persons, including the petitioners. The petitioners were called for interview, but the election...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Mariappan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)655; 1993CriLJ2780

ORDER1. Petitioner Ashok Kumar filed a private complaint against respondent Mariappan, who was formerly D.S.P., Kancheepuram and at the time of occurrence D.S.P. Chengalpet. The allegations in the complaint show, that on 23-4-1989 at or about 10.10 p.m. when the petitioner was having supper in the Dinning Hall of his house, he heard a clatter of shoes of a posse of men. When he diverted his attention, he found to his utter dismay and shock the respondent accompanied by two constables menacingly rushing towards him with lathies. Before he could utter a word the respondent beat him violently with his lathies with a metal band at its tip. The beating landed on his left eyebrow. More blows were rained on him by the respondent, while two constables in the company of the respondent, also beat him with lathies. When appellant protested, the respondent attempted to catch hold of his neck and in so doing, the 5 sovereign gold chain, worn by him got snapped. The respondent picked up the gold cha...

Murale Match Works Vs. the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellat ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1993(44)ECC143

V. Ratnam, Ag. C.J.1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal and we also very carefully perused the order of the learned Judge. Admittedly, there was an enormous delay in the filing of the appeal by the appellant before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay after rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay. That was also unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in W.P. No. 12264 of 1988. This Court also took the view that the appellant had not in any manner explained the inordinate delay and dismissed the Writ Petition, the correctness of which is questioned in this appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the delay in the filing of the appeal by the appellant before the Tribunal has been satisfactorily explained as on account of certain proceedings pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the delay in the communication of th...

Sundara Rajan and anr. Vs. Sundaramoorthy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1993)1MLJ640

Abdul Hadi, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They filed the suit O.S. No. 1951 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif of Cuddalore, for declaration of their title to the suit property and for possession thereof. They claim title under Ex.A-3 sale deed dated 23.8.1977. The trial Court has upheld their title and also held that the alleged prior sale agreement in relation to the suit property between the defendant-respondent and the plaintiffs' vendor Krishnamoorthy Rao, is not true and that the defendant is a tenant of the suit property. So saying, the trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title and possession and directed the defendant to remove the superstructure put up by him on the suit land within two months.2. However, in the appeal filed by the defendant, viz., A.S. No. 122 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, the defendant was allowed to file additional written statement. There, he pleaded that he became a tenant of the suit site un...

Chinnasamy Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1994CriLJ882

1. Appellant Chinnasamy was the first accused in S.C. No. 103 of 1985 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. He along with five others stood charged before the trial Court as under on the allegation that at about 7.00 p.m. on 21-1-1985 in front of the house of deceased Kauthan Muthuraja at Ettarai village all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting, that during the course of the said rioting and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, A1 committed the murder of the said Kanthan Muthuraja by cutting him with an aruval on his head and other parts of the body and that all of them trespassed into the house of the said Kantham Muthuraja and that they committed mischief by destroying the articles in the said house. Charge No. Section Accused1 147 IPC A2 to A62 148 IPC A13 302 IPC A14 302 read with A2 to A6 Section 1495 448 IPC A1 to A66 436 IPC A1 to A6 After trial learned Sessions Judge found the first accused alone guilty unde...