Chennai Court September 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.
P. Jawahar Vs. S.S. Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas34(Mad)
Thangamani, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 5525 of 1991, on the file of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. On January 7, 1991, he issued a cheque for Rs. 6,500 bearing No. 102627 to the respondent drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Mount Road branch, Madras, in settlement of a prior loan. On February 5, 1991, the respondent presented the cheque for encashment. However, on February 8, 1991, it was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. Thereupon, he sent a notice to the petitioner on February 14, 1991, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. Though the petitioner received the notice on February 15, 1991, he did not comply with the demand. Thereupon, the respondent preferred a complaint in the Court of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and the same was taken on file as C.C. No. 2496 of 1991. On May 9, 1991, the complaint was dismissed since the complainant was absent. Later on the respondent presented the cheque ...
ibrahim Ismail Vs. Superintendent of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC65
ORDERRatnam, J1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order in W.P. No. 13125 of 1992 [reported as Ibrahim Ismail v. Tlte Superintendent of Customs, Madras Airport and Ors. in : 1993(65)ELT174(Mad) ] dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for a declaration that the proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', providing for giving of notice referred to in Clause (a) and representation referred to in Clause (b) of Section 124 may be oral at the request of the person concerned, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. There were two other prayers in the writ petition ancillary to the main relief prayed for. Having regard to the limited scope of the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 124 of the Act, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in extenso, except to state that by order dated 29-6-1992, passed by the second respondent herein, confiscation of certain goods ...
Litelon Private Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC165
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition is directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Region, dated 12.2.1993. The order was passed on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The total duty demanded by the original authority was Rs. 5,76,764.07 and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The demand arose out of a mis-declaration of the said goods. The first item relates to polyethylene sheets, which the petitioner has described as falling under article [heading?] 3926.90 and the second item relates to polywool, which was declared as coming under the residuary article [hading?]. The Revenue sought to invoke the longer period of limitation in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The contention was that in respect of polyethylene sheets, the longer period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. So far as polywool is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that it is entitled to the benefit of notification 132/86, as amended...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. K.M. Yakub (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ189
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 1st defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in O.S. No. 1286 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the concurrent dismissal of its I.A. No. 374 of 1979 in the said suit filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for purchasing the suit land, with reference to which the abovesaid suit by the 1st respondent herein, sought the relief of possession.2. The 2nd defendant in the said suit, viz. Lorry Owners' Association is a dealer under the 1st defendant, selling petroleum products of the 1st defendant at the suit site. But, it did not file the abovesaid Section 9 application, but, only the 1st defendant filed the said application.3. The trial court has dismissed the said application and the appeal therefrom in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1983 filed by the 1st defendant also ended in dismissal. Hence, this civil revision petition.4...
K.N. Gunalan Represented by His Power Agent Parimelazhagan and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ510
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner. The petition for eviction has been filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period 1.7.1976 to 1.4.1980. The petition was filed on 24.1.19S0. The monthly rent was Rs. 125. The total amount due for the said period was Rs. 5,875 out of which the tenant had paid Rs. 3,725 in driblets on various occassions. The balance due as on the date of the filing of the petition was Rs. 2,150.2. Before the filing of the petition, the landlord had issued a notice on 3.8.1979 terminating the tenancy with the end of August, 1979. He had called upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent due as on that date. The amount due on that date was Rs. 1,325 which was arrived by deducting a sum of Rs. 3,500 which was paid by the tenant by then towards the total rent of Rs. 4,825 due for the period 1.7.1976 to 31.7.1979. To the notice dated 3.8.1979, the tenant sent a reply on 25.8.1979 under Ex. A-4 wherein he denied the arrears. He sent ...
R.S. Swami Rao and ors. Vs. T.K. Kumaraswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ200
Srinivasan, J.1. The common question arise in these civil revision petitions and the second appeals is, whether the suits are barred by limitation? The suits have been filed by different persons against the same set of defendants. The first defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners. The debts in all the cases commenced on 10.10.1974 and ended on 9.4.1977. Defendants 2 to 5 filed I.P. No. 27of 1977 for adjudicating themselves as insolvents on 2.7.1977. One of the creditors by name Kamalam was not included in the array of parties, she filed an application to implead herself as party and the same was ordered. Consequently, the original petition in the I.P. was amended and the true copy of the amended petition was filed in court on 17.4.1980. The following tabular statement will give the particulars of the present suits.______________________________________________________________________________Date of Suit Name of D.M.C., Sub Court, High Court,plaint claim p...
G. Chandrasekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2259
ORDER1. Invoking the inherent power of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., the petitioner, the Manager of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai has filed the present petition to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy in Crl.R.C. No. 26 of 1993 dated 15-6-1993 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai made in Crl.M.P. No. 2960 of 1993 dated 13-1-1993 which was filed on his behalf under S. 451 of Criminal P.C. praying for the interim custody of a cash property of Rs. 33,35,766.25/- in the judicial custody. 2. The short facts which lead to this petition as culled out from the records of the Courts below are stated as follows. A total sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- was transmitted by the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Branch through a metador van bearing registration No. TN 69-6105 accompanied and escorted by the staff of the said Bank on 12-2-1992. While the van was coming along the main road within the jurisdiction of ...
Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT736(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of parties the writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal at the time when the miscellaneous petitions were heard. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics and toilet preparations like 'eye-brow pencils, bindhi pencils, eye shadow, eye liners as well as other types of pencils. ' On the basis of certain inspection, the first respondent gave Show Cause Notice charging the petitioners for having cleared dutiable goods like eye-brow pencils in the guise of kum-kum pencils or black pencils which are not dutiable. After considering the explanation and the materials available with the first respondent, the order was passed demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 1,47,10,803/-, a redemption fine in respect of the goods confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- on the writ petitioner. This apart, penalties were also levied on the Directors individually. The petitioner filed five stay applications and also applications for waiver of the pre-depos...
Sri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of Cus., Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT547(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Monday the thirteenth day of September 1993 and on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 13-7-1993 and made herein and the counter-affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order relevant to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the respondents to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Srinivasamoorthy, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order :- By consent of parties the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners own a Textile Mill and are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The Mill has 28,000 spindles as on date. It is stated that nearly 30% of the yarn manufactured by the petitioners are being export...
S.S. Chokkalingam Vs. R.B.S. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ78; (1994)1LW321
Srinivasan, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in four suits tried together in which evidence is recorded in common. The earliest suit is at present bearing the number O.S. No. 3 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee. That was filed on 11.11.1981. That is a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 2,975 upto October, 1981. That suit has been tiled by T.G. Sairam and G. Rama. They have claimed title to the properly under a purchase dated 16.2.1981. The only defendant in the suit is the appellant before us.2. The next suit in chronology is O.S. No. 52ofI984 filed by the appellant herein in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee for specific performance of a contract dated 1.6.1978 directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed and to receive a sum of Rs. 37,500 or any other sum of as may be determined by the Court. The defendants in that suit are R.B.S. Mani, R. Sankaran, T.G. Sairam and Rama Bai. De...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »