Chennai Court February 1993 Judgments
Sundara Bai Vs. Ponmani Town Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ349
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order in E.A. No. 135 of 1992 in E.P. No. 26 of 1987 in O.S. No. 18 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in which the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C.2. The short facts are: The first respondent filed a suit against the second respondent for arrears of lease amount and has obtained a money decree. In execution of the same, the first respondent is bringing the property concerned in the execution petition for sale. While so, the appellant, the daughter of the second respondent, has filed the petition in E.A. No. 135 of 1992 under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. making a claim over the property concerned in the execution proceedings which was attached and brought to sale. The said application was opposed by the first respondent/decree-holder. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappan Vs. Poongothai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3695
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the first accused before the trial Court. He along with three other accused were charged for the offence under Section 494 read with 109 I.P.C. by the trial court on the allegation that though P.W. 1 the complainant remains to be his legally wedded wife, the revision petitioner deserted her by purporting cruelty and illtreatment for one reason or other and that after having driven her away from the conjugal home, he contracted the second marriage unlawfully and illegally with the second accused, who was acquitted by the trial Court on the same charge with the help of the third and fourth accused, who were the second and third appellant before the lower appellate court. On the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 both oral and documentary in the context of the plea of total denial by the appellant and the other accused, the trial court found the second accused, namely, the second wife alone not guilty and whereupon acquitted her, but convicted the revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Asher Textiles Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT181(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in C. No. V/18A/30/2/86, dated 31-7-1986 and to quash the same.2. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the process of mercerising of yarn will amount to 'manufacture' for the purpose of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder. Brief facts relating to this case are the following :3. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is a spinning mill. Besides spinning the petitioner company has got a separate unit for processing the yarn manufactured at the spinning unit. It is the case of the petitioner that the grey yarn manufactured at the spinning unit was taken for processing into mercerised yarn in the processing unit and the processing unit did not have a separate licence. However, in the year 1977, the Deputy Collector, Central Excise felt that the merce...
Tag this Judgment!Gobald Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT559(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order of the first respondent dated 20-9-1987 and the orders of the second respondent dated 31-5-1988 and 14-2-1989, and to quash the same, and for a consequential direction to refund a sum of Rs. 7,000/- collected from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of the first respondent. 2. Brief facts relating to this writ petition are the following :- The petitioner, a private limited company, is manufacturing and selling various kinds of yarn. On 10-6-1986, the officials of the first respondent visited the petitioner's business premises and inspected the factory. After such inspection, the officials of the first respondent came to the conclusion that there was a shortage of 245.95 kgs. of yarn in respect of 34 counts yarn and an excess of 88.70 kgs. of yarn in respect of 40 counts yarn. On the basis of the above conclusion, a sum of Rs. 554.65p was the lev...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT562(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to a directive bearing reference D. C. No. 160/86, dated 27-3-1986 and to quash the directive and for consequential relief. 2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Notification No. 195/86-C. E., dated 13-3-1986 granting exemption covers the exemption from excise duty to steam manufactured for the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986. In other words whether the said notification is prospective or retrospective in character with reference to the same petitioner. The Collector (Appeals) in A. No. 114/88 (CBE) by order dated 30-10-1988 has decided the issue in favour of the petitioner and it appears that the revenue has accepted the same. On the basis of the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has to be allowed. Mr. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel however, submits t...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Sastri (Died) and ors. Vs. the Collector of Chengalpattu District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ24
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Lands measuring an extent of 698.73 acres in Mukthapudupet village and Koilpadagai village of Saidapet Taluk were acquired as a block for the purpose of Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act XXX of 1951 An extent of 62.42 acres in S.F. No. 64 and 2.45 acres in S.F. No. 63/2 of Mukthapudupet village belonging to the first appellant formed part of them. The notification under Section 7(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 25.10.1971 as per Ex.A-1. The relevant 'J' notice was given in July, 1972. The Special Deputy Collector in his Award Proceedings No. Rc.141/72-L.2, dated 30.6.1973 (Ex.B-2) fixed the value of lands at Rs. 64/- per cent on the basis of Ex.B-1 sale deed dated 6.11.1971 alter considering 56 sales of lands bearing the same tharam and assessment as that of the acquired lands in the locality. Since the land owner claimed enhanced compensation, the Collector of Chengalpattu at the in...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Samuel Alias Paulraj Samuel and anr. Vs. Koil Pitchai Anandhadura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ109
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The revision is directed against the order in I.A. No. 921 of 1992 in O.S. No. 25 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, allowing the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order 26, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner to examine two witnesses Perumal Nadar and Piramanayagam Pillai, who are stated to have attested two wills.2. The case of the petitioners in the court below is that to prove the two Wills concerned in the suit the respondent had to examine two witnesses Perumal Nadar and Piramanayagam Pillai who are stated to have attested the two Wills and they were not in a position to come to Court and depose, and so an advocate Commissioner is to be appointed to examine them. The said application was resisted by the petitioners herein contending that there was noexecution of Wills at all and both Perumal Nadar and Piramanayagam Pillai were doing well and were living just 30 kms. away from...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Navithan Vs. Veluchami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ476
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 560 of 1991 in E.P. No. 258 of 1990 in O.S. No. 697 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, obtained a decree against the petitioner herein. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 22.7.1986 and a final decree was passed in I.A. No. 1442 of 1988 on 16.6.1989. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 258 of 1990 to realise the decree amount of Rs. 6,020. The property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale on four occasions. In the sale proclamation the decree amount is shown as Rs. 6,020. The value of 4 acres and 48 cents of property was shown as Rs. 67,200. According to the judgment-debtor, the value of the said property would be about Rs. 1,00,000. The judgment-debtor contended that since the decree amount is only Rs. 6,020, the entire property worth about Rs. 1,00,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalianna Kounder and ors. Vs. Marappa Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ33
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal are against the orders passed in I.A. No. 775 of 1991 in O.S. No. 231 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankari.2. The short facts are:-The respondent herein had filed the suit on a promissory note against the first revision petitioner and had also filed a petition in I.A. No. 775 of 1991 for attachment before judgment. In that petition, the first petitioner in the civil revision petition who was the defendant in the suit and the second revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1638 of 1992 who was a third party in the suit, had offered the properties belonging to the second revision petitioner/third party as security. Learned Subordinate Judge had rejected it stating that the property offered by the third party as security cannot be accepted. Aggrieved by that order, C.R.P. No. 1638 of 1992 is filed by the defendant as well as the third party, as revision petitioners. After rejecting the security o...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1076Mad; (1993)IIMLJ655
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order stated 30.7.1984 made in Application No. 80 of 1984 in I. D. No. 62 of 1982 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras the first respondent herein.2. In the month of October, 1983 it came to light that colossal misappropriation of funds belonging to the petitioner-Corporation to the extent of nearly 50 lakhs had been perpetrated. An investigation was conducted into the matter and a special team of auditors were appointed to scrutinise the accounts. It came to light from the said investigation and scrutiny that one Mr. M. Rajagopalan who was employed as cashier in the head office of the petitioner-Corporation at Kumbakonam had misused his position and perpetrated the said misappropriation. It further came to light that a certain other officials in the head office who had dealing with the accounts had also to be proceeded against for their part in enabling such a fraud ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »