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.
i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC178; 1994(69)ELT458(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are Public Limited Company having their head office at Calcutta. They are engaged in the manufacture of Cigarettes of different brands. They have factories at various places in India. These writ petitions are with reference to the factory at Bangalore. The controversy surrounding the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act') with reference to post-manufacturing expenses has been set at rest by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329. Since various Collectors of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the petitioners were issuing show cause notices on the proper method of determining assessable value, the Director General of Inspection (Customs and Central Excise) was named as the Authority for the purpose of adjudicating all such show cause notices issued from different Collectorates. The Director-General ultimately passed an orde...
A. Sangameswaran and ors. Vs. Sri Lakshmi Textiles a Registered Firm b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ470
Thangamani, J.1. The appellants in A.S. No. 192 of 1983 are defendants 2 to 5, 11 and 1 in O.S. Nos. 981 of 1978,1055 of 1978 and 109 of 1982 respectively on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Salem. In another two appeals the 1st defendant does not figure as an appellant. Three different plaintiffs have laid those suits against the present appellants and 5 others. In the first suit there is one more defendant by name Goodluck Textiles. The plaintiffs are registered partnership firms dealing in textiles on wholesale business. Hereafter parties are referred to as arrayed in the suits.2. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 5. Defendants 6 to 9 are their close relations and associates. They were doing textile business under the name and style of Dhanalakshmi Textile Traders who is the 10th defendant in the suits at Door No. 3-4-395 Tobacco Bazaar in Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The first suit has been instituted for the recovery of Rs. 60,000 for the value of texti...
Tvl. Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs. Pl-A. Annamalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: AIR1995Mad205
ORDERK. A. Swami, CJ.1. The first three writ appeals are preferred against the common order dated 19-7-1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 9909 to 9911/91, whereas Writ Appeal 1111 of 1993 is preferred against the order dated 21-9-1993 rejecting W.M.P. 16050 of 1993 filed in Writ Petition 10498 of 1993. When Writ Appeal 1111 of 1993 came up for consideration, it was brought to our notice that Writ Appeals 1011 to 1013 of 1991 also involve the same point and are concerned with the validity of the permits granted in favour of the 1st respondent in each one of the appeals. It was also submitted that the arguments in Writ Appeal 1111 of 1993 and Writ Petition 10498 of 1993 will be the same. Therefore, we directed the writ appeals 1011 to 1013 of 1991 and Writ Petition 10498 of 1993 be posted with Writ Appeal 1111 of 1993.2. All these matters had come up on anearlier occasion for hearing, but at the requestof the learned counsel appearing for thegrantees of the permits...
Chitra Colour Lab. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC32; 1995(79)ELT386(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In all these writ appeals, the subject matter is, as to the validity of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, insofar as it defines 'industrial plant' excluding service establishments like photographic studios from project import benefit. Learned single Judge has upheld the Regulations. Hence the petitioners in the writ petitions have come up in appeals.2. It is not necessary to make a de novo approach to these cases, in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Photographics v. Union of India, : 1993ECR234(SC) . The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, and has held that it is open to define 'industrial plant' excluding service establishments like photographic studios from the project import benefit and as such the Regulations cannot be held to be invalid. The aforesaid decision, it is not disputed before us, fully covers these cases.3. Following the aforesaid decision, ...
A.M.M. Arunachalam Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ387
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner owns a house property at Chitaranjan Road, Alwarpet, Madras, where he has been residing. According to the petitioner Chitaranjan Road runs from East to West connecting T.T.K. Road on the eastern side and Cenatoph Road and the said Chitaranjan Road has been classified as a residential zone. It is stated by the petitioner that he wrote letters to the first respondent during November, 1992 and the communication received from the respondents would show that the said Chitaranjan Road has been classified as a residential zone. The petitioner would state that in March, 1993,an old residential building belonging to the 5th respondent on the western end of Chitaranjan Road bearing Corporation Door No. 21, Cenatoph Road was demolished. Subsequently, a board was put up bearing the name of 3rd respondent indicating that the 3rd respondent proposed to construct an office complex in the said property. The petitioner claims that the 2nd respondent stated on 18...
Karupayi and ors. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ395
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These two civil revision petitions filed by the respective tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relating to two different portions of the same building. They are against the same landlord, and are taken up together since they involve same question of law, though at the appellate stage two separate appellate orders were passed, both dated 17.2.1993. Both the tenants have failed in both the courts below, since concurrently eviction order has been passed against each of them under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Actually, on the whole, the same landlord filed 7 R.C.O.Ps. including the present R.C.O.P. Nos. 244 of 1981 and 241 of 1981 for evicting 7 different tenants occupying the different portions of the abovesaid same building under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, on the footing that he bona fide required the eritire building, that is, all the 7 portions thereof, for his own residential occupat...
B. Rajagopal Vs. Assistant Director of Inspection (investigation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Mad)330; [1994]208ITR702(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. Second accused in C. C. Nos. 319 to 329 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II, Egmore, Madras, has filed these petitions to quash all further proceedings in the said cases. 2. The respondent has filed complaints against Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Finance and Industrial Investments, Madras, the petitioner herein, and one K. V. Sasidhar, arraying them as accused Nos. 1 to 3, respectively, for the offence under section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. To quash the same, the second accused in all those cases has come forward with these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure, Code. 3. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that according to the complaint, the petitioner is a partner of Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Finance and Industrial Investments and that necessary allegations as required under section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have not been made in the complaint to make him li...
State of Tamil Nadu (Represented by Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: [1996]217ITR199(Mad)
K.A. Swami C. J.1. These tax revision case are filed under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated September 27, 1988, passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal in A. T. A. Nos. 48 to 50 of 1986. The Tribunal has held that the respondent cannot be considered to be an association of individuals and it can only be considered as tenants-in-common; therefore, each one of them has to be assessed only as an individual. 2. The facts of the case are : The respondent estate belongs to the beneficiaries, namely, the son and grandsons of the testator, and each of them is entitled to an undivided 1/5th share who under the will bequeathed in the estate in question. No doubt, they have been managing the estate together. 3. The question for consideration is as to whether they can be considered to be an association of individuals. An association of individuals can be formed by a voluntary act of i...
K.V. Narasimhan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR797(Mad)
Belle, J.1. These 28 criminal revision cases arise out of one common judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 74 and 90 to 102 of 1987 all filed by K. V. Narasimhan, the accused against his convictions and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Egmore, Madras, in 14 cases in E.O.C.C. Nos. 714 to 727 of 1986. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 have been filed by the accused K. V. Narasimhan and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 have been filed by the Department. 2. The learned Magistrate in each of the said 14 cases has convicted the appellant-accused under sections 193, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 196, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 420 Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 468, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), and section 471 read with section 468, Indian Penal Code (42 counts), and under section 277 of the Income-tax Act (56 Counts), and under all sections and on all counts sentenc...
A. Alangaram Vs. A. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ298
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), who has failed in both the courts below, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.2. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is neither plea, nor proof regarding the dilapidated condition of the petition-building, which, according to the learned Counsel, is absolutely required to be pleaded and proved pursuant to the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in P. Orr and Sons (P.) Limited v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L.W. 547. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord, in this regard, contends that the pleading should not be construed strictly and that at any rate even assuming that the abovesaid plea is not in the petition it was in contemplation between the parties and therefore, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »