Chennai Court December 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.
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), B.H.E.L. Vs. M.G. Sampathkumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ406
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The question referred to us is whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing an appeal is maintainable, if the application for certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial court has been made after the expiry of the time prescribed for the appeal.2. C.M.P. Nos. 14783, 15250, 13001, 13002, 11215 and 11216 of 1993 are filed to condone the delay in filing the ASSR No. 42494 of 1992, ASSR. No. 50879 of 1992, ASSR. No. 92793 of 1990, ASSR. No. 92795 of 1990 CMASR. No. 56162 of 1993 and CMASR. No. 56162 of 1993 respectively sought to be preferred to this Court against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore,in L.A.O.P. No. 8 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Ponnamallee, in L.A.O.P. No. 106 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Arani in L.A.O.P. No. 109 of 1987 on the file Sub Court, Arani, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 250 of 1987 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims ...
Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd. Vs. Board for Industrial and Financi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas646(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd. (for short, 'the petitioner-company') it is said is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on May 17, 1977, having its registered office at No. 144, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kottivakkam, Madras-41. the authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 150 lakhs and paid-up capital is Rs. 114 lakhs of which 65 per cent. of the equity capital is held by the promoters and its associates and the remaining 35 per cent. by the public. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile ancillary components, namely, shock absorbers, dampers, door lifters and other allied automobile components. it has its manufacturing unit at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur, Dharmapuri district in Tamil Nadu. 2. It commenced commercial production in the year 1983 and it could not make much headway with the project of manufacture of gas filled shock absorbers and started incurring continuous losses. Consequently, it...
F.A. Poncha Vs. M. Meherjee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ352
ORDER1. Petitioner F. A. Poncha, is the sole accused in C.C. No. 2981 of 1990 pending on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, initiated on a private complaint preferred by respondent Meherjee, alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. 2. In this petition preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court, Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, contended that there was no publication of the defamation alleged, for not even the name of any single member, to whom publication was made, does get itself revealed, from the averments made in the complaint. Further, the complaint does not disclose the reaction of those unnamed members. He contended that the letter despatched by the petitioner was not so done with intent to defame, but with sustaining interest, that racing must be clean and members of the public should not be cheated. He ...
K.M. Seeni Mohamed Vs. Special Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: 1994(72)ELT3(Mad)
Swamidurai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi made in Appeal No. 819/90, dated 26-8-1992 confirming the adjudication order No. SDE(R)/IV/98/90 dated 10-4-1990 whereby a total penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- [Rs. 2,50,000/- for violation of Section 9(1)(b) and Rs. 2,50,000/- for violation of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973] was imposed on the appellant K.M. Seeni Mohamed. 2. For appreciating the contention of the appellant brief facts of the case have to be stated at the first instance. The Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras searched the residential premises of K.M. Seeni Mohamed, the appellant herein on 12-5-1987 at No. 35, Gaffoor Sahib Street (1st floor), Royapettah, Madras and recovered and seized Indian currency of Rs. 12,740/- in cash and one bank draft for Rs. 5,000/- besides some other documents. While the search of the aforesaid premises of the appellant was in progres...
Orient Litho Press Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC131; 1994(71)ELT32(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Monday the 29th and Tuesday the 30th days of November 1993 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 29-7-1988 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in C-3/1128/85 in Appeal M. Cus. 42/86 dated 9-1-1986 on the file of the first respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. K. Illias Ali Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following order :- The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in printing and publishing. As part of its extension programme, it intended to import colour offset printing machine with pre-press register system and other such te...
Latha Maheswari Vs. Palaniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ507
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. C.M.S.A. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1983 arise out of the order passed in C.M.A. Nos. 241 and 242 of 1982 respectively, which in turn arose out of the order passed in O.P. Nos. 119 of 1978 and 56 of 1981 respectively. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:2. The appellant herein is the wife, while the respondent is her husband. The husband filed O.P. No. 119 of 1978 for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion. The appellant wife filed O.P. No. 56 of 1981 for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the respondent he married the appellant on 22.8.1976 and the said marriage took place without the consent of the appellant herein and only after the marriage the respondent came to know that the appellant did not like the marriage with the respondent, but she had love with one Balan. The appellant has not allowed the respondent to consummate the marriage. The respondent informed about this to the pare...
R. Thangavelu Vs. the Government of India Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ628
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ petitioner herein and others who claim to be the freedom fighters, were refused the grant of pension under the Swadantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India. Hence, they approached this Court for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Government of India and for mandamus to pay the pension from a particular date. Some writ petitions were filed for the relief of mandamus directing the Government to consider their names and consequently to pay the pension from a particular date.2. Some impugned orders were passed on merits. Some without assigning any reason. A few orders were issued on the printed/cyclostyled form by filling up the necessary particulars in the blanks left out for that purpose. Some orders were passed on the ground that the imprisonment undergone has not been established. Quite few orders have been passed rejecting the applications on the question of belatedness. S...
M.K. Ramaswamy Vs. A. Krishna Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ7
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. C.R.P. No. 3283 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 95 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1981. C.R.P. No. 3284 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 96 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1981. The tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlord filed petitions for eviction against both the tenants under Section 10(2)(1) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the landlord, the tenant in C.R.P. No. 3283 of 1987 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 31.12.1980 for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs. 85 per mensem amounting to Rs. 1,020 and therefore he Ls liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. So also the tenant in C.R.P. No. 3284 of 1987 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 31....
Meera Nireshwalia Vs. Sukumar Nireshwalia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad168; II(1994)DMC562; (1994)IMLJ242
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit O. S. No. 67 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Madras. The plaintiff-wife is the appellant in A.S. 800 of 1993 which has been filed by her as an indigent person. She also filed the said suit as an indigent person. The defendant-husband is the appellant in A. S. No. 841 of 1993.2. The said suit is for past maintenance for a period of three years prior to the date of the plaint, 1-4-1991 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per month, in all amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/ -and for future maintenance at the same rate, in all amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The court below has granted a decree only at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. In other words, the court below has granted a decree for Rs. 36,000/- for the above said three years prior to the date of suit as against the claim of the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-for the above said three years. The Court below has also granted future maintenance at the sam...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Charanjeeth Kappor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC64
K.A. Swami, C J.1. The question for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the respondents are entitled to synthetic/woollen rags imported by the respondents fall under OGL vide serial Number 418, List 8, Part I of Appendix 6 of the ITC policy for the year 1993. Similar policy for the years 1985 to 1988 has been considered by the Supreme Court and it has been held that such an import is permissible under OGL. In Appeal (Civil) Nos. 12523 to 12526 of 1988 filed by the Collector of customs against the CEGAT order in Kakkar & Co. v. Collector of Customs reported in , the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal and has held as follows:-In view of the facts found by the Tribunal it is clear that the goods were rags as contained in Billsof Entry, there is no dispute. The only question in dispute that was raised was that the rags were notcompletely mutilated and these are retrievable and are restitchable. The Tribunal went into the questionand held exhaustive discussion, took into con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »