Chennai Court March 1993 Judgments
S. Mohan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ343
ORDER1. The petitioner herein challenges Rules 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 framed by the first respondent herein under S. 79 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and void. 2. The petitioner herein is a practising Chartered Accountant in Madras since 1978. A search was made at the petitioner's office and residence and on the same day another search was made at Hotel Savera by the officers of the respondents and the petitioner alleges that he has nothing to do with the same. It is stated in the affidavit that later the petitioner was summoned by the officers of the third respondent for enquiry and on 10-12-1991 the petitioner attended the enquiry. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a memorandum against 11 persons including the petitioner as accused charging of offences under the Provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA') and the petitioner was charged under Ss....
Tag this Judgment!Madras Hotel Ashoka (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. E.S.i.C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR208]; (1994)ILLJ495Mad; (1993)IIMLJ399
ORDERThangamani, J.1. M/s. Madras Hotel Ashoka (P) Limited, Pantheon Road, Egmore, is the appellant herein. The Emloyees' State Insurance Scheme was extended to hotels in Madras City from January 15, 1977 as per G.O. Ms. No. 287, dated July 3, 1976. There are about 156 workmen in the appellant hotel. On February 14, 1979 Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation inspected the Hotel and submitted his report for the period from January, 1977 to January, 1978. Pursuant to the same Ex.P-2 communication dated September 25, 1978 was sent by the Regional Office of E.S.I. Corporation to the appellant pointing out that there has been a delay of 76 days and 93 days in submission of contribution cards for the contribution period ending on 7/77 and 9/77 respectively. The appellant has also been requested to pay interest of Rs. 147.60 towards late submission of contribution cards as laid down under Regulation 31-A of E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950 at the rate of 6% per annum for each day of default o...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC266
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a registered exporter. It applied for a value-based advance licence under the provisions of Import-Export Policy, 1992-97. The licence was granted on 29.7.1992 for importing certain specified goods for CIF value of Rs. 4,28,591/- as against an export obligation of Rs.15 lakhs within a period of 12 months from the date of first importation. The goods specified were;(1) Crngo sheets Rs.1,37,027/-; (2) Poly Propyline Rs. 8,258/-; (3) Copper wire Rs. 66,121/-; (4) Aluminium Alloy Rs. 1,09,870/-; (5) M.S. sheet Rs. 8,496/-; (6) Ball bearings 6201 Rs. 37.383.5G/-(7) Ball bearing 6202 Rs. 37,383.50; (8) Craft Paper Rs. 24,032/-. The petitioner fulfilled the export obligation by 17.9.1992 and also realised the sold proceeds through various dealers. Along with the Advance Licence a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate bearing No. 054512 was issued to the petitioner in which the customs authorities had made necessary endorsements in Part 'F towards proof...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Soundarrajan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT358(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the second respondent Tribunal directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- under the Customs Acts, 1962 and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 2. Against the orders of the Collector of Customs, Tiruchirapalli, imposing penalty of Rs. 12,500/- under the Gold (Control) Act, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the Customs Act, dated 30-12-1991, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal and also filed a petition for stay. The Tribunal found that prima facie, a case is not made out and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit on or before 30th November, 1992 and subject to which pre-deposit of balance amounts by the petitioner would stand disposed with pending appeal. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he was falsely implicated in a Customs offence in which gold bars were recovered on 1-3-1989. It seems gun...
Tag this Judgment!Thirugnanam Vs. M. Kulasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ380
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of his I.A. No. 108 of 1991 praying for restoration of I.A. No. 735 of 1990 filed by him and was dismissed on 5.11.1990 since he did not pay the cost of Rs. 100 which he was directed to pay, by order dated 10.10.1990, within the time stipulated (about 25 days). The said I.A. No. 735 of 1990 was to set aside the order dated 8.6.1990, setting him ex parte in the suit O.S. No. 578 of 1988.2. When the civil revision petition came up before me I posed the question to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to how the abovesaid I. A. No. 108 of 1991 itself was maintainable since the order dated 5.11.1990 in I.A. No. 735 of 1990 was not an ex parte order. Either the petitioner could have filed a petition for enlarging the time granted by the court below for the payment of the abovesaid sum of Rs. 100 or filed an appeal or revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramu Vs. Ramaswamy and Anothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2544
ORDER1. The victim girl aged about 35 years by name Ramu daughter of one Arunachala founder of Pothireddipatti village in Sattar Taluk, the complainant and examined as P.W. 1 before the trial Court has filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Crl. R.P. No. 24 of 1988, acquitting both the respondents/accused of the offence under section 354, I.P.C. and setting aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and the fine amount of Rs. 500/- each to be refunded, which was imposed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sattar in C.C. 101 of 1987 and confirmed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri villiputhur in C.A. 44 of 1988. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the recorded evidence are stated as follows : The revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Palanivel Vs. B. Saraswathi and 2 Minors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC120
Arunachalam, J.This petition was heard in part on 17.3.1993 The only ground urged by the petitioner's Counsel was that the impugned proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have been initiated by B Rajagopal, father and guardian of the first respondent and grandfather of the minor second respondent. I directed the petitioner's Counsel to cite authorities, if any, for this proposition, for which he replied that there was none. Anyhow, he pleaded for a week's time to again search for authorities. Today learned Counsel represented that, to his knowledge, there was no authority for the said proposition.1. Petitioner is admittedly the husband of the first respondent and father of second respondent, his minor daughter. Petitioner was not successful in M.C. No. 14 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. V. Madurai, wherein proceedings were initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the father of the first respondent since the first respondent was mentally deranged and was not in a p...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagarathinam Vs. S. Balakathiresan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ678
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the trial court. Defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers. They are the sons of one Sankiah Pillai and Chithirathammal. While the third defendant is the wife of the first defendant, the fourth defendant is the wife of the second defendant. Door No. 2 in Ramu Pillai Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai, described as item 1 in 'A' schedule appended to the written statement of the first defendant originally belonged to the mother of Sankiah Pillai. On the death of his mother Sankiah Pillai became exclusively entitled to this house as his separate property. He was also assigned an extent of .5 cents in Maruthur village. Sankiah Pillai bequeathed these two items in favour of the appellant by his Will Ex.A-1, dated 26.10.1966. The appellant claims that on the death of Sankiah Pillai on 29.111973, he became the exclusive owner of these properties. By the same Will Sankiah Pillai purported to bequeath 'A' schedule buildings and 'B' schedule lands and '...
Tag this Judgment!O. Ulaganathan Vs. K.R.G. Chandrasekar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ201
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. Ulaganathan, petitioner herein has filed this writ petition for habeas corpus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to produce his minor daughter Sunitha alias Obulaxmi and for setting her at liberty in the custody of the petitioner. The first respondent is the father-in-law and the second respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner married Uma Maheswari on 9.6.1984 and a female child was born on 11.12.1986 and the minor child Miss. Sunitha is now aged about six years. The minor daughter is studying in Mettur St. Marys Montessori School at Mettur Dam from 24.5.1990 and she was in the school till 5.5.1992. The petitioner has stated that his family is one of the richest families in Salem District carrying on business. The petitioner was living with his wife happily. The petitioner's parents are having two sons including himself and the petitioner is the eldest son. His wife being the only daughter-in-law of his parents, was treated with gre...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Indira Narayanan Vs. Government of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1993
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas740(Mad); (1994)IMLJ24
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows : . to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, prohibiting the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, the second respondent herein, from proceeding with the complaint given by the third respondent herein in O. P. No. 50 of 1992 taken on its file and pass. 2. The petitioner, who is a medical practitioner has come before this court with this writ petition, when the third respondent filed O. P. No. 50 of 1992 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. During June, 1988, it seems that the wife of the third respondent, Smt. Indira, was admitted in the Murari Hospital with labour pain. The Murari Hospital, where the petitioner was working, was run by a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Since the wife of the third respondent did not deliver till late in the evening (on June 17, 1988), the petitioner t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »