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.
Ruby Leather Exports Vs. K. Venu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas776(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. All these criminal original petitions are disposed of together by a common order, for a single question of law of vital importance, has been raised. Subsidiary questions argued, in one or other of the matters, will be dealt with individually, after answering the main contention. 2. It will be better to state the facts in each one of these original petitions, before framing the question to be answered and embarking upon a discussion on the same. 3. Criminal Original Petition No. 8731 of 1992 : The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in C. C. No. 9123 of 1991, pending on the file of Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. They are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the basis of a private complaint initiated by the respondent, Venu. While seeking quashing of the pending prosecution Mr. T. K. Sampath, the petitioners' counsel, contended that an authorised representative will not be competent to initiate ...
Poovan and Another Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3050
1. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 155 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division are the Appellants herein. Accused No. 1 lis convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under S. 323, IPC, the sentences to run concurrently. Accused No. 4 is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under under S. 323, IPC. The 1st accused preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34 of the IPC and the sentence for imprisonment for life and three months rigorous imprisonment under S. 323, IPC, the 4th accused preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction under S. 323, IPC and the sentence for rigourous imprisonment for three months o...
State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs. Tirumala Tirupathi Deva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC44
Ratnam, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the State Trading Corporation of India against the order in W.P. No. 10611 of 1991 (printed at page 48 infra) filed by the first respondent herein praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to reship two consignments of 20 tonnes each of raisins lying with the second respondent back to the supplier at Turkey after complying with the proceedings of the second respondent dated 11.7.1991. Pursuant to a licence obtained by the first respondent for the import of dried grapes (raisins), two containers of 20 tonnes each of raisins were imported through the appellant and the consignment reached the Madras harbour on 24.12.1990. Even before the consignment of the imported raisins reached Madras harbour, the consignment was sold by the appellant to the first respondent by endorsing the shipping documents. When steps were taken by the clearing agents of the first respondent for clearing the consignment, the Port H...
K. Pichaikani Vs. Assistant Collector, C. Ex. and Customs, Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: 1997(93)ELT678(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kadirvel for Mr. S. Ganesan Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following order :-This criminal revision case is filed by the accused. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. And this conviction and sentence has been confirmed in the appeal by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The case against the accused is that on information, P.W.I. the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19-10-1988 at 6.30 A.M. went to the house of the accused and there he found 30 gunny bags of foreign cloths. The accused was not there. He took a stateme...
K. Pitchaikani Vs. Asstt. Collector, Central Ex. and Cus., Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT42(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kadirvel for Mr. S. Ganesan, Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following order :-The criminal revision case is filed by the accused. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. And this conviction and sentence has been confirmed in the appeal by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The case against the accused is that on information, P.W. 1, the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19-10-1988 at 6.30 A.M. went to the house of the accused and there he found 30 gunny bags of foreign clothes. The accused was not there. He took a state...
S. Shadrach Paul Vs. the Registrar, High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ296
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. One S. Shadrach Paul (petitioner), erstwhile Head Clerk, District Court, Madurai, had been selected and appointed as Sheristadar (category 1 of Class IV of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service - for short 'TNJMS Rules') District Court, Madurai by the Principal District Judge, Madurai-20 (second respondent) in his order A.No.314/93 dated 14th May, 1993. On an administrative appeal preferred by one S.Rathinasabapathy (third respondent), erstwhile Sheristadar, Sub Court, Dindigul, this Court set aside the same by order in RCCNo. 171/93/C1, dated 4.10.1993 and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration according to law.2. On remand, Principal District Judge, Madurai, taking into consideration the relevant materials, by his order in A.No.754/93, dated 27.10.1993, selected the third respondent for being appointed as Sheristadar, District Court, Dindigul. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, without resorting to the statutory r...
Sri Arulmighu Sundara Mahalingaswamy Temple, Represented by Its Heredi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ520
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Though the contempt application was filed and came up for hearing, since the writ petition falls within a short compass, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner challenges a Government Order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 763, dated 3.6.1976, Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 3.6.1976 by which a Fit Person was appointed for the petitioner institution. In April, 1976, an Executive Officer was appointed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 22 of 1959'). The petitioner challenge the order of appointment of the Executive Officer byway of writ petition, but it was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner can move the Government under the provisions of Act 22 of 1959. The petitioner challenged by way of filing suits in O.S. No. 324 of 1976 on the file of Sub Court, Madurai for declaration that the order appointi...
Samou Jean Pierre Vs. Jacquline Samou
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ382
ORDER1. C.M.A. No. 1192 of 1993 This is an appeal filed by the respondent in F.C.O.P. No. 757 of 1991 on the file of Family Court, Madras, against an order made on 23.8.1993 by the Principal Judge. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights. It is not necessary to set out the allegations made in the original petition for the purpose of this appeal. The appellant is contesting the said petition, after filing a counter statement. The respondent filed I.A. No. 578 of 1992 for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500 p.m. till the disposal of the main original petition and also for Rs. 3,000 by way of legal expenses to conduct the original petition. The appellant filed a counter affidavit in that petition. When that petition was pending, the respondent filed a memo on 31.3.1993. According to the memo, no documentary proof was available to the respondent to prove the properties owned by the appellant. A request is made in the mem...
B.M. Habibullah, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad222; (1994)IMLJ229
ORDER1. These five writ petitions raise common questions and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, I propose to refer to the facts in W.P. No. 5513 of 1992.2. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 5513 of 1992, he has been carrying on busines since 1970 under the name and sytle of S. A.B. Stores in Shop No. 2, Block No. 110 in the site belonging to the Government situated near Coonoor Bus Stand falling within the municipal limits of Coonoor Municipality. Itis the case of the petitioner that he has invested considerable sums of money in the business and has also obtained licence for running the business for the year 1992-93 and also obtained a Drug Licence under the provisions of Drug.-, and Cosmetics Act. It is stated by the petitioner that on 11-4-1992 without any notice and justification, the 1st respondent and an army of revenue and police officials demolished bis, shop and 22 other shops by using Buldozer. It is also stat...
Soundararajan and ors. Vs. Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ665Mad; (1994)IMLJ496
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or direction or any other appropriate order or direction and calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in (1)No.L.14012/53/90-IR(DU),(1) No.L.14012/53/90-IR(DU),(2) L.14012/56/90,(3)L.14012/53/90,(4)L. 14012/38/90-1R,(5)L. 14012/28/90,(6)L. 14012/47/90,(7)No.L.14012/44/90,(8)L.14012/22/90,(9) No.L. 14012/66/90,(10)L. 14012/68/90,(11)L. 14012/28/90,(12)L. 14012/73/90,(13)L.14012/57/90,(14)L.14012/79/90,(15)L.14012/89/90,(16)L.14012/65/90,(17)L.14012/81/90,(18)L.14012/30/90,(19)L.14012/29/90,(20)L.14012/49/90,(21)L.14012/46/90,(22)L.14012/60/90,(23)L.14012/77/90,(24)14012/34/90,(25)14012/82/90,(26)14012/45/90,(27)14012/31/90,(28)14012/37/90,(29)14012/19/90,(30)14012/51/90,(31)14012/55/90,(32)14012/52/90,(33)14012/54/90,(34)14012/72/90,(35)14012/74/90,(36)14012/84/90,(37)14012/52/90,(38)14012/63/90,(39)14012/24/90,(40)14012/36/90(41)14012/21/90,(42)14012/11/90,(43)14012/5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »