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.
Sanjay Arya Vs. the Director of Technical Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ277
ORDERBakathavatsalam, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from restraining the petitioner from writing the four year B.E. Degree Course University examinations under the following circumstances:The petitioner claims to belong to Barber Community recognised as Backward Community in Rajasthan State and he passed the plus two examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Edcuation, Rajasthan, in the year 1992 in which he claims to have obtained the following marks in the subjects indicated below:English : 49/100Maths : 76/100Physics : 63/100Chemistry : 60/100It is also claimed by the petitioner that he obtained distinction in the Mathematics subject.The petitioner appears to have approached the fourth respondent/self-financing college at Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu, seeking for admission to B.E. degree course as against the seats available under the management quota in the said institution. On being satisfied, as it is claimed by the...
Ravindranath Vs. Samuel Asirvatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ98
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is the petitioner in this civil revision petition.2. The respondent-landlord raised three grounds in R.C.O.P. No. 95 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for securing the eviction of the petitioner. But, this civil revision petition is concerned only with one of the abovesaid three grounds viz., demolition and reconstruction (under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act). The R.C.O.P. was dismissed on all the said three grounds. But, in the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord in R.C.A. No. 22 of 1986, the said dismissal was set aside and eviction was granted on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Hence the civil revision by the tenant.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions. The landlord has not proved that the building was bona fide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolition an...
Paulsons Litho Works Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR676(Mad)
Raju J.1. The above writ petitions have been filed by one and the same writ petitioner, though relating to different assessment years, viz., 1987-88 to 1990-91, respectively, for writs of mandamus directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, staying the collection of the disputed tax and interest relating to those assessment years. Before adverting to the grievance and the contentions of the respective parties, it would be useful to refer to the circumstances which led the petitioner to approach this court. The petitioner is a partnership firm and was said to be an assessee on the file of the first respondent, holding permanent account No. 49-001-FV-2540. The petitioner was carrying on business of printing and sale of labels during the relevant assessment years, and according to the petitioner, it has been regularly submitting the return of income. The assessment relating to the petitioner was also said to have been completed up to the assessment year 1992-93 and the peti...
Standard Colour Products Vs. Superintendent of C. Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: 1994(72)ELT243(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the First respondent in Re. No. 30225/84, dated 5-1-1985 said to have been received by the petitioner on 22-1-1985. Under the impugned proceedings, the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 11,245.93 said to be the amount of Excise Duty, outstanding due, within seven days on threat of coercive action, for recovering the amount, invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is seen from the said notice that the impugned communication emanated on account of a request made from the Superintendent of Central Excise. 2. The petitioner is M/s. Standard Colour Products at No. 63, G.N.T. Road, Pulal, Madras-66 and were manufacturing synthetics, organic dyestuffs falling under Tariff No. 14(d) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Being a small scale unit, they have been discharging their liability to pay the excise duty under the simplified pr...
Habeeb Rahman Vs. Meenakshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ645
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.6.1993 in I.A. No. 1195 of 1993 in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. The respondents in the above revision petition have obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in R.C.O.P. No. 209 of 1982 on 10.2.1984. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises pursuant to the order of eviction, E.P. No. 114 of 1985 came to be filed to execute the order of eviction. From the copy of the execution petition and the orders made available at the time of hearing, it is seen that in an earlier E.P., as per the joint endorsement made, the petitioner was granted time till 31.12.1984 for delivering possession. It is only since the petitioner did not comply with the assurance made in the earlier E.P., the present E.P., came to be filed. In the present E.P., the petitioner appears to have filed E.A. No. 1319 of...
T. Khaleeq Ahamed (Minor) Through Lr Vs. Director of Government Examin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad188
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 27-7-1992 passed by the first respondent cancelling all the plus two examinations written by the petitioner in March, 1992 and directing that he should be debarred from writing the plus two examinations for three sessions.2. The petitioner is a student of Government High School, Namakkal South. He seems to have appeared for the examinations for plus two in March, 1992. He was allotted the Registration No. 751810. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition that on 16-3-1992, while the petitioner was writing the examination in English First Paper, after filling up the particulars in the first page of the main answer book, he found that by inadvertance one more main answer book has also been included and that the second main answer book was not in the proper format. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner had brought this to the notice of the Invigilator at the examination hall itself, but ...
Collector of C. Ex., Madurai-2 Vs. Coronation Litho Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT238(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. At the stage of admission, the respondent has been directed to take notice. Accordingly, he is represented through a counsel. As the Appeal involves a short point, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 10th September, 1993, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6373 of 1993. In the Writ Petition, the respondent herein sought for quashing the order dated 5-3-1993, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Branch at Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, directing the respondent to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on or before 31st May 1993 and report compliance subject to which pre-deposit of the balance duty and the entire penalty on petitioner CLW and petitioner Nataraj Prabhu would stand dispensed with pending appeal.3. Learned single Judge has held that the Tribunal has passed a very correct and judicious order. However, he has held that i...
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. J. Jayalalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ314
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.7.1993 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. Nos. 6094 and 6095 of 1993.2. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petitions. The first respondent is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. The second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petitions. The Election Commission of India has been impleaded in the writ appeal pursuant to the orders dated 7.10.1993 and 20.10.1993, at the instance of the first respondent passed in C.M.P. No. 13873 of 1993.3. The first respondent herein has also filed another petition, C.M.P. No. 13874 of 1993 for directing the second respondent (Mr. T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner) to rescue himself when the question of the alleged disqualification of the first respondent is taken up for adjudication by the Election Commission. The Election Commission, through its Secretary, has also filed the counter-affidavit on its behalf. Mr. T.N. Seshan has als...
Superintendent of C. Ex., Erode Vs. Sri Krishna Vanaspathi Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT484(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The view taken by the learned single Judge is supported by a Division Bench of this Court in The Superintendent of Central Excise, Villupuram Range, Villupuram v. The Madras Vanaspathi Ltd., rep. its Managing Director A. Kuberan (W.A. No. 784 of 1992 dated 21-7-1992). In that decision, the very notification dated 25-8-1989 came up for consideration and it was held that the said notification was prospective and not retrospective, as the said notification itself stated that the earlier notification dated 1-3-1987 was rescinded with effect from 25-8-1989. Accordingly, following the said decision, we see no ground to admit this writ appeal. The writ appeal is rejected. ...
M.i. Irudayam Pillai (Deceased) and ors. Vs. S.P.L. Chockalingam Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ600
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This revision petition is against the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, in R.C.A. No. 119 of 1982, dated 4.10.1983.2. During the material time, the original owner of the building in premises No. 282, South Market Street, Madurai, was one Abdul Khader and the second respondent Union of India, Madurai City Division, represented by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, was the tenant in a portion of the building by paying a rent of Rs. 350 per month. The property was brought for sale as per the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 530 of 1970. The first respondent S.P.L. Chockalinga Chettiar purchased the property in court auction sale on 29.3.1976 and the sale was confirmed by the court on 20.12.1976. Between the period of sale of the property, viz. 29.3.1976 and 2`12.1976 the petitioner entered into a mortgage on 14.6.1976. The second respondent Union of India filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 129 of 1978 for deposit of rent. The first responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »