Chennai Court November 1993 Judgments
Dickson Prem Raj Vs. R. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas245(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 298 of 1990, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kuzhithurai, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter I shall refer to it as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : Towards discharge of a debt due to the complainant from the accused, the accused gave a cheque dated April 10, 1990, to the complainant for Rs. 14,500. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment in the bank on September 24, 1990. It was returned with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated September 26, 1990, through his lawyer demanding the accused to pay the amount due under the said cheque. The accused had received the notice on Septembe...
Tag this Judgment!The Vice-chancellor, Anna University and anr. Vs. D. Vasanthakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ36
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The writ appeal is preferred by the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University and also the Registrar of the same University against the order dated 3.12.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. No. 15377 of 1992 filed in W.P. No. 10668 of 1992. When the writ appeal came up for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, therefore W.P. No. 10668 of 1992 was directed to be posted along with the writ appeal. Accordingly, both the matters are posted before us and the same are heard together.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner who is the respondent in the writ appeal, has sought for quashing the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University in Reference No. 14378/A3/92 dated 26.6.1992.3. In the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether Anna University is competent to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (D. Vasanthakumar).4. Facts...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Circular Looms Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT801(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal today. 2. The writ petition is directed against an order of the Tribunal, dated 20-9-1993, directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of rupees sixteen lakhs for considering his appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 3-5-1993, imposing a duty of Rs. 32,63,482.92, a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- and penalty to the tune of Rupees one lakh. According to the petitioner, the goods were manufactured out of indigenous and imported components and they were sent in S.K.D. condition to the place where the erection is to take place. One of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the manufacture is completed only at the place of erection. Secondly, it is pointed out that the Tribunal had not taken note of the financial position of the petitioner company before directing deposit of rupee sixteen lakhs. Having heard the learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT190(Mad)
ORDER1. The first writ petition is to quash a show cause notice dated 30-8-1993 issued by the first respondent. The second writ petition is to quash a Trade Notice 12/1993 dated 5-2-1993 issued by the third respondent. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of air assisted braking equipment. They are also undertaking job work for T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. by producing castings from the raw materials supplied by the said customer. Virgin aluminium is procured by the petitioner-company and is converted into alloy ingots by a job-worker. Aluminium ingots are melted by the petitioner and poured into dies to get necessary castings. Thereafter, the castings are cut to remove 'runners and risers'. The waste aluminium thus realised recycled, according to the petitioners in their own factory. In the process certain products like 'dross' and 'ash' are produced and they are in powder form. These materials are sent outside the factory to be reconverted into aluminium ingots. The petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ranka Vs. the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Tamilnadu, High Court and Or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ349
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This matter has been posted before the Full Bench obviously because the connected matters namely, a contempt petition and a writ petition filed by this petitioner were referred to this Full Bench. This writ petition was presented on 28.9.1993. The first respondent is the Chief Justice of this Court, respondents 2 to 4 are judges of this Court, the 5th respondent is the Union of India, 6th respondent is the Indian Overseas Bank, and the 7th respondent is the Advocate-Commissioner R. Subburam. The prayers are as follows:(A) the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, respondent No. 1 herein, in turn, to direct the Registry of this Hon'ble Court to forthwith number the contempt Petition under D. No. 14283/92; W.P.SR., No. 93969 of 1992, W.M.P.SR. No. 1205/93 in W.P.SR. No. 93969 of 1992 and place the papers before the respondent No. 1 herein.(B) the respondent No. 1 herein to constitute an appropriate LARGER BENCH to expeditiously hear and decide the Contempt Petition, Writ and W...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC42; 1994(69)ELT464(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondents have been served. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondents is also present. As the appeal involves a very short question, in the light of the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. It may be pointed out here that in the Writ Petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the endorsement dated 14-8- 1993 on the letter of same date of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to clear the goods sought to be reimported, covered under the Bill of Entry No. 24212/12-7-1993, free from duty under Notification No. 13/81 dated 9-2-1981 read with the orders dated June 1992 and 6-8-1993. 3. During the course of the hearing of the petition, it had been pointed out before the learned Single Judge, that the aforesaid endorsement was appealable and the petitioner/appellant had also preferred on appeal before the Collector of Customs. Learned Single Judge has ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Cheganlal JaIn and anr. Vs. Xiii Judge, Court of Small Causes and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ203
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.11.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19811 of 1993. In the said writ petition, the petitioners appellants have sought for quashing the order dated 16.6.1993 passed in M.P. No. 653 of 1990 in R.C.O. P. No. 862 of 1988.2. It may be pointed out here that the petitioners/appellants had also filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 19810 of 1993, seeking a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, from proceeding further with O.S. No. 3877 of 1987.3. Learned Single Judge has rejected both the writ petitions by a common order. As already stated, the present writ appeal relates only to the subject matter of W.P. No. 19811 of 1993.4. R.C.O.P. No. 862 of 1988 is filed by one Hamid Sultan for fixing the rent. In that proceeding, W.P. No. 653 of 1988 is filed on the ground that the proceeding is not maintainable, since there is no relationship of landlord-te...
Tag this Judgment!Justice S.T. Ramalingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad252; (1994)IMLJ260
ORDERMishra, J. 1. The instant application by a retired Judge of this Court is sadly, but pointedly bringing into focus how the status of the constitutional functionaries such as the Judges of the High Court is viewed and how the High Court Judges are treated by the executive wing of the State of Tamil Nadu. Before the facts, we feel, and like to speak about how pre-Constitution and post-Constitution Judges of the High Courts in India have been treated by the Constitution and the law and how they stand in discharge of their constitutional functions.2. In pre-Constitution days a High Court Judge appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935 held a civil post under the Crown, but Section 253 thereof was not applied to him. When the Constitution of India came into force and India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic after breaking with the bonds of the Crown. Article 395 of the Constitution specifically repealed the Government of India Act and under Article 376, the Judges of a High...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Visalakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Mad)248; [1994]206ITR531(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This is an application made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials to hold that the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received by the assessee consequent on his resignation from the employment is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The Tribunal has declined to make a reference on the group that even resignation also results in termination of service. Therefore, it falls under section 89(1) read with section 17(3) of the Act. In view of this, the point for consideration is whether the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230 received by the assessee, consequent on his resignation from employment, is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Act. Section 89(1) and section 17(3) of the Act are as...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited by Regional M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ240
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.2 of 1993 on the file of the appellate authority (Sub Judge), Arni, confirming the order passed in R.CO.P.No.15 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Arni.2. The respondent has filed petition against the revision petitioner and another under Sections 10(3)(iii) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) as amended (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'), on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own use. That was resisted by the respondent, who would contend that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide and that he may take the first floor premises, which is available for occupation. After enquiry the learned Rent Controller had held that there was no wilful default in payment of rent but had held that the requ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »