Chennai Court October 1993 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR381(Mad)
Bellie, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer, Circle III, Madras, the complainant in the case against an order of acquittal passed by the appellate court setting aside an order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in a case in which the accused was accused of having committed an offence punishable under section 276B read with section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. As per the complaint, the accused which is a company, viz., Messrs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Limited, Madras, for payment of tax from their employees, deducted tax at source but the same has not been remitted to the credit of the Central Government within a week without reasonable cause or excuse as required under section 276B of the Income-tax Act read with section 200 and rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, and, therefore, they have committed an offence. 3. The trial court, viz., the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), ...
Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT219(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is engaged in the growing, manufacture and sale of Tea including instant Tea Powder. The instant Tea Division has been exporting its entire production, to the general currency areas. For the purpose of this instant Tea Division the petitioner imported two Decanter machines from Germany in the year 1982. This import was on full payment of Customs duty and Additional duty. Taking advantage of a scheme announced by the Government of India, the petitioner applied to be recognised as 100% Export Oriented Units (hereinafter called EOU) and they were recognised by an order dated Nil, June 1992. The said recognition enables the petitioner to get exemption from payment of Customs duty and Additional duty in respect of their imports to the tune of 300 lakhs rupees. But it must be noticed here that the two Decanter machines were imported prior to the said recognition. However, after the said recognition in June, 1992, the said two Decanter machines developed certain functio...
G. Rajendran Vs. P.C. Ramalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ306
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 1st defendant-judgment-debtor has filed this civil revision petition against the order in E.P. No. 60 of 1993, allowing the said execution petition filed by the decree-holder-respondent for issue of warrant for delivery of possession of the suit property, pursuant to the partition final decree passed on 29.4.1992 in O.S. No. 576 of 1983.2. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition itself is not maintainable in view of the following facts : On 25.6.1992 itself the decree-holder filed Ex. B-1 memo in the suit, praying for recording full satisfaction of the decree on the footing that the decree-holder had taken possession as per the final decree, outside court. Further pursuant to the said memo, on 30.6.1992 the court also recorded full satisfaction accordingly. Therefore, according to the said counsel for petitioner, the present E.P. No. 60 of 1993 filed on 1.2.1993 is not maintainable. The learned Counsel also ...
Dukes Pharma Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC286; 1994(69)ELT433(Mad)
ORDER1. In all these cases, though different Notifications are mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions, the sole question of law advanced before me being common, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common Order. 2. I shall set out at the appropriate place the common question of law that arises for consideration, after narrating the facts that are necessary for appreciating and understanding the issue before us. 3. Brief facts may now be noted. Except the petitioner in W.P. No. 8 of 1989 and first petitioner in W.P. No. 8885 of 1985, other petitioners are owners of factories wherein patent or proprietary medicines (hereinafter referred to as 'P.P. Medicines') are manufactured. They also allow other manufacturers of P.P. Medicines but do not own factories, to hire shift or shifts at their factories for manufacture of P.P. Medicines. Such manufacturers who do not own their own factories, but hire shift or shifts at the factories owned by others for manufac...
K.M.A. Abdul Wahab Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ58
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 8925/84-A5, dated 10.9.1984 and the Form of Assignment dated 4.10.1984. Under the impugned proceedings, the second respondent, the wife of the third respondent has been assigned an extent of 500 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 268/1 which is said to be a Natham Jari of Ramanathan Koil Village, Needamangalam Taluk, Thanjavur District. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the claim now made before this Court are that the predecessor of the petitioner put up a house in the property, that the petitioner is continuing as the owner and that the same was leased out to one Tharamu Ammal and R. Chandrasekaran who in turn appear to have sub-let the said property in favour of the third respondent. Since the lessees of the petitioner committed wilful default and also unauthorised by sub-let the property, the petitioner a...
V. Suresh Kumar Vs. C. Sreekrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas103(Mad)
Pratap Singh J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 51 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the said C. C. No. 51 of 1993. 2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The allegations in the complaint are briefly stated as follows : The respondent has purchased 100 bags of rice on August 10, 1992, from the petitioner as per credit bill No. 69 for Rs. 60,540 and has taken delivery of the said 100 bags of rice. The respondent issued a cheque on Canara Bank, Nazarath, dated September 22, 1992, for a sum of Rs. 30,540 in favour of the petitioner towards the part payment of the abovesaid credit bill. When the petitioner presented the said cheque on September 22, 1992, through his bank, namely, State Bank of India, Vadiveeswaram Branch, Nagercoil, for collection, it was returned on October 22, 199...
C. Selvaraj Vs. T.N.E.B.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1070Mad
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated May 7, 1988 confirming the order of the second respondent dated January 30, 1988 removing the petitioner from the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner is the Vice President of the Engineering Diploma Holders' Association which was later merged with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Sangam. The petitioner used to assist the other employees in several enquiry proceedings, in accordance with Clause 32(vii)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not relish the conduct of the petitioner in assisting and representing the members of the Union in domestic enquiries. In respect of one such enquiry held against one S. Deivanayagam on June 19, 1984, there was an altercation between -the Enquiry Officer, namely, the fourth respondent, and the petitioner as to what transpired between the two in the enquiry proceedings. Th...
Govinda Padayachi Vs. Uthandi Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ312
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S. No. 20 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment in O.S. No. 1322 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Panrutti.2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed the suit on the foot of a pronote against the revision petitioner. He resisted it on the ground that there was partial failure of consideration that there was partial discharge that the endorsement was not true that defendant is entitled to the benefits of Debt Relief Acts and that the suit claim was barred by time. After trial, the learned District Munsif had rejected all the objections raised by the defendant and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 1987 and having failed there, has come forward with this revision petition.3. Mr. V. Narayanaswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the plaintiff relied upo...
Kathan Muthiriyar and anr. Vs. Gopal Rathinam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ373
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These civil revision petitions are directed against the orders passed in E.P. No. 400 of 1987 in Petition No. 1498 of 1986 and in E.P. No. 596ofl987inPetition No. 1698ofl986on the file of Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Lalgudi.2. Short facts are: Regarding C.R.P. No. 1288 of 1988, the respondent had filed petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The revenue court found that he was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 5,414 and gave time for payment till 31.3.1987. He had not paid the amount. So the respondent filed E.P. No. 400 of 1987 and the Revenue court had passed order of eviction. Aggrieved by that order, C.R.P. No. 1288 of 1988 is filed.3. Regarding C.R.P. No. 1289 of 1988, the respondent filed petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Here again, the Revenue Court has found that the revision petitioner had to pay arrears and gave time till 30.10.1987. Since the revision petitioner had not paid the arrears within t...
Jawahar College Staff Association and anr. Vs. University of Madras Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ376
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The writ appeals are preferred against the Order dated 3.9.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. Nos. 16279 to 16304 of 1993,16806 of 1993,17608 of 1993 and 19245 of 1993. The learned single Judge, has issued the following directions:The next contention of Mr. U.N.R. Rao and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, is that there cannot be any stay of order of termination. It is true generally, courts do not stay any order of termination. But, there is no axiomatic principle of law that courts can never grant stay of order of termination and a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be shackled by any such principle. It has already been noticed that the order of termination is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act. When the writ petitioners were claiming for regularisation of their temporary services, the respondent management has issued th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »