Chennai Court November 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.
Yaxon Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT574(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against on order of the second respondent, dated 3-1-1992, rejecting an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The second respondent was impelled to pass an order because the petitioner has made a strange request before the Tribunal that the Senior departmental representative must be present before he argues the application for waiver. The Tribunal rightly rejected the request for adjournment and consequently dismissed the application for waiver. Before me it is argued that the Tribunal could have considered the application for waiver on merits and passed suitable orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. The duty demanded by the Original Authority is Rs. 2,46,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner pleads financial restraints in making the payment. Considering all the aspects of the case. I direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of rupees one lakh within two months from today. On such deposit, the appeal will be taken on file and dis...
Ram Mandiri and anr. Vs. Ranganatha Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ357
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by District Munsif, Ranipet, admitting the document, which is marked as Ex. B-2.2. Short facts are: The petitioners have filed the suit in O.S. No. 368 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the respondent. That was resisted by the respondent. Then trial had commenced. The second petitioner was examined as P.W. 1. He was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the respondent. During cross-examination, it was elicited that they had filed the suit against the respondent and his brother in O.S. No. 289 of 1989 in the trial court and they initiated the court that they had settled the matter out of court and then the suit was dismissed and that Ex. B-1 is copy of the decree. It was further elicited from him that the suit property in this suit was the suit property in the prior suit also. Then it was elicited from him that there was a panchayat in the presence of certain named persons. Then he was q...
Rajeswari Vs. Dhanammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ401
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the reversing judgment dated 4.9.1992 in C.M.A. No. 29 of 1992 on the file of the 2nd Additional City Civil Court, Madras, by the respondent/plaintiff, whereby the lower appellate court has dismissed I.A. No. 12454 of 1981 filed by the petitioner herein in the. trial court in O.S. No. 4059 of 1979 for purchase Of the suit land under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The said suit O.S. No. 4059 of 1979 is by the respondent for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit land of an extent of 3,086 sq.ft., claiming that one 50' x 141/2' land is in the abovesaid 3,086 sq.ft., land was leased out to the petitioner under Ex. A-1 agreement dated 13.6.1975, but the petitioner had trespassed into the other remaining portion of the said suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement, inter alia, claiming that the enti...
M. Munusamy Gounder Vs. Commissioner for Land Administration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ310
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The facts are not basically disputed. The lands in question bearing R.S. No. 10/4 (1.92 acres) and 10/5 (1.04 acres) at Kadagampatti village are admittedly bought-in-lands of the Government within the meaning of Revenue Standing Order 45. The lands were assigned in favour of the 3rd respondent and there was a long history of litigation between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Sub-Collector, Tindivanam, against the order of assessment and the same was allowed on 2.2.1973. On revision by the third respondent, the District Revenue Officer remanded the case to the Sub-Collector on 31.7.1973. Thereafter, by an order dated 11.3.1974, the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Deputy Tahsildar and directed fresh enquiry. That order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.3.1974 was confirmed upto the stage of the Commissioner of the Land Revenue. In the meanwhile, the petitioner seems to have filed O.S. No. 2 o...
Phillip Jeyasingh Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ398
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. We are somewhat surprised that this matter has been referred to us once again, though it has been considered by a Full Bench to which one of us was a party earlier and by judgment dated 22nd January, 1992, the reference had been answered. The judgment is reported in Philip Jeyasingh v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1992) 1 L.W. 216.2. The question referred to that Full Bench was 'can the judgment of the Full Bench in R. Tamilarasan v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles (1991) 2 L.W. 409 be characterised as ant per incuriam or obiter dicta as opined by the Division Bench of this Court in A. Natarajah v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1991) 2 L.L.J. 296 : (1991) 2 L.W. 420. The question was answered in paragraph 63 of the judgment which reads thus:We have no hesitation in answering the question referred to us in the negative and holding that the judgment of the Full Bench in R. Tamilarasan v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles (1991) 2 L.W. 40...
K. Ganesan Vs. the Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ234
Srinivasan, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 11853 of 1983 and 8442 of 1984 were heard by Mr. Justice Mishra. He passed an order on 20.2.1992 in which he expressed the view that the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in R. Tamilarasan v. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras : (1992)1MLJ54 is per incuriam and obiter dicta and a judgment of a subsequent Full Bench of this Court in W. Philip Jeyasingh v. The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (1992) 1 M.L.J. 130 : (1992) 1 L.W. 216, which was expressly constituted to consider whether the judgment in Tamilarasan's case is per incuriam and obiter dicta is also per incuriam and not binding on him. The order made by the learned single Judge is reported in (1992) 2 L.W. 406. In paragraph 44, the learned Judge said as follows:On the basis of my conclusions as above, the only course that the court should adopt is to issue a writ, quash the order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and treat the petitioner in continuou...
V.X. Joseph Vs. T. Pasupathi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad193
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale and alternatively without prejudice to the abovesaid relief, for a direction to the defendants to refund a sum of Rs.22,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance towards sale Consideration and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff by way of compensation for the loss and damages sustained by the plaintiff. The first defendant is the father of the minor second defendant. The first defendant only executed an agreement of sale on 14-7-1980. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of house and premises bearing Door No. 282, Suryanarayana Road, Madras-13 for a sum of Rs. 37,500/-, that he paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as advance to the first defendant who agreedto complete the transaction before the expiry of 60 days from the date of agreement. Subsequent to the agreement of sale, the first defendant wanted the pl...
Eltex Rudy Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT208(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal, at the time of hearing the miscellaneous petitions. 2. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium rough castings. They had been availing exemption on these goods under Notification No. 180/88 read with Chapter Heading 7616.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Later the Revenue re-classified the goods as machinery parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff, thus denying the benefit of the said notification. The stand of the petitioner-company is that whatever be the classification of the goods, the duty if any, payable by the petitioners, as and when paid becomes a credit of duty for the buyers who use castings in the manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, the contention is that the duty, if paid, becomes a credit for the buyers in term of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The second respondent made two demands for Rs. 78,78,292.85 and Rs. 13,65,73...
Muthukaruppan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ303
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. I have heard Mr. K. Govindarajan for petitioners and Mr. V.P. Sengottuvelan for respondents. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.(3-D) 175, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 11.2.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 issued in G.O.(3-D) No. 288, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.4.1992.3. According to Mr. K Govindarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have not followed the procedures contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act and that admittedly, the Notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Government Gazette dated 18.3.1991, but the Notification was published earlier in the newspapers on 14.3.1991 itself. It is further contended that the decision of the Gover...
Karra Kondamma Vs. Karra Nagamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ516
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This revision petition is against the order in R.C.A. No. 5 of 1986 dated 12.11.1986 of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The petitioners herein is the landlord. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the tenant in respect of a residential premises No. 16, Perumal Koil Garden, 10th Lane, Sowcarpet, on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller allowed the petition. The respondent/tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in R.C. A. No. 3 of 1986 and the same Was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner/landlord, has preferred this revision petition.3. It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of the appellate authority is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »