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.
S. Sadayandi and anr. Vs. D.S. Pudupaty Co-operative Building Society ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ369
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 575 of 1986 in E.P. No. 28 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.2. The short facts are: The revision petitioners were landlord to the respondent-society. For that amount, the respondent moved before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the said Deputy Registrar had passed an award. To realise the amount given in the award, the respondent filed E.P. No. 28 of 1981 for attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the revision petitioners. In the Court auction sale, the respondent himself had purchased the property. Later, the respondent filed E.A. No. 573 of 1986 for delivery, and delivery was ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been filed.3. Mr. Sankaran, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, would submit that by virtue of Section 91 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, which was in force at th...
P.P.V. Annamalai and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ651
Bellie, J.1. The four plaintiffs (who are brothers) who have lost their case in the trial court are the appellants.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit lands of 19 cents in Survey No. 43/1B, 30 cents in Survey No. 43/1A and 25 cents in Survey No. 43/3B all totalling to 14 cents in Paiyur Pallavayal village belong to them. While the adjacent land of an extent of 2.26-acres in Survey No. 43/3B was being acquired by the Government for the purpose of a bus depot for the Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai, the suit lands were also sought to be acquired for the defendant-Corporation for the purpose of construction of operation godown. Since the defendant-Corporation required the suit lands for urgent construction of the godown it directly entered into a deal with the plaintiff to straightaway purchase the lands and in that connection on 27.4.1978 the parties entered into a written agreement and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement the defendants agreed to purchase the...
Ponnaiyan Alias Periya Gounder Vs. Rangasamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ263
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner herein. He objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the relevant particulars are not given in the decree and as such, the decree is in executable. Clause 1 of the decree reads that the plaintiff is entitled to bale out water from the common well 'W' to his portion marked as 'X' by rotation through the channel marked as C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 in the rough plan. Clause 3 of the decree provides that the defendant shall restore the channel C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 to its old position and a mandatory injunction is given to that effect. Clause 6 of the decree says that the rough plan attached to the plaint and the plan of the Commissioner marked as Ex. C-4 are attached to the decree as part thereof. It is the contention of the petitioner that the decree does not give measurements of the channel or the location of the channel. The particulars contained in the decree are not sufficient to locate the channel and therefore...
Photon India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1993
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC79
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. By consent of parties the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in the purchase of paper in rolls, cutting the same and selling the paper. For this purpose he had arranged for the purchase of a second hand paper-cutting and slitting machine from West Germany. The machine was shipped from Germany on 19.12.1992 and arrived at the Madras Port Trust on 19.1.1993. A bill of lading (sic bill of entry?) for home consumption was filed by the petitioner with the second respondent. Since there was delay in assessment of duty the goods were stored in bond under the provisions of Section 49 of the Customs Act.2. By an order dated 8.3.1993, the Additional Collector of Customs (Appraising Department), the second respondent herein, held that the import of the subject goods was illegal because there was no proper import licence for the import. Consequently, he directed confiscation of the subject goods under Section 1...
C. Arivanandhan Vs. A. Gokulakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ254
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in O.S. No. 209of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.2. The short facts are The petitioner herein has filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note dated 16.7.1976 on 20.12.1986. The revision petitioner claimed that the suit was filed in time because the defendant/respondent was not a debtor entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, that the period, viz., 16.1.1975 to 14.7.1978 was covered by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act and that therefore, the suit could not be laid. His further reason is that he filed the suit promissory note in a proceedings between parties in O.S. No. 451 of 1981, that he got back the suit promissory note only on 30.7.1986 and if that period was excluded, the suit filed by him was in time. The said claim of the revision petitioner was resisted by the respondent on several grounds inter alia contending that the suit filed by the revision petitio...
Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: 1995LC15(Madras); 1993(68)ELT731(Mad)
ORDER1. The point emerging for consideration in both these actions against common respondents is exactly the same and therefore, they are taken up for consideration in this common order, although the petitioner is distinctively different. 2. M/s. Paper Products Ltd., Madras-42 (for short `PPL' - petitioner in the former WP) is registered as a limited company under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business, inter alia, of processing and supplying wax papers to customers and printing of papers and waxing them. It is licensed under the Central Excise Law. Excise duty, it is said, had been levied and collected in respect of transactions of processing and supplying of wax paper to customers and printing of papers and waxing them under Tariff Item No. 17(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act 1 of 1944 - for short `CESA'). Coming to know that such a levy and collection is not legally permissible, inasmuch as waxing of base paper, subjected to Excise Duty...
The Pondicherry University Represented by Its Registrar and anr. Vs. D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ1
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.8.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6294 of 1993. At the stage of admission, the respondents have been notified. Accordingly, the respondents have put in appearance. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner who is the 1st respondent in this appeal, prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents herein to convene a meeting of the committee appointed at the meeting held on 3.8.1992 and direct the committee to inspect the Pant Institute of Technology at Pondicherry, to ascertain its infrastructural facilities for conducting degree courses in Medical Lab Technology, Pharmacy and Nutrition for affiliation with the Pondicherry University, Pondicherry and pass such other orders as are deemed fit under the circumstances of the case. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the r...
Selvaraj Alias Raju Vs. Govindarajulu Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ129
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the Order in I.A. No. 816 of 1986 in O.S. No. 319 of 1974 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.2. Short facts are: The second respondent has unufractuarily mortgaged the suit property to the first respondent. Later, she sold the suit property to the revision petitioner subject to the usufructuary mortgage. The revision petitioner filed the suit for redemption. Preliminary decree was passedon 18.9.1978 giving one month time for payment of the amount. One month time would come to end by 18.10.1978. The revision petitioner did not deposit the amount within the one month time. He filed I.A. No. 816 of 1986 for passing final decree on 8.4.1986 and during the pendency of the same, he deposited the amount fixed under the preliminary decree in court on 19.9.1986. The petition filed by the revision petitioner was resisted by the first respondent on many grounds inter alia contending that the petition is barred by ti...
S. Ganapathy Chettiar, Proprietor, Karkalaiyar Plastic Works Vs. R.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ601
Mishra, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 2 of 1993 and the applicant in O.A. No. 3 of. 1993 has preferred this appeal against an order by a learned single Judge of this Court under which, he has disposed of the application or injunction to restrain the respondents Dharmalingam Mudaliar, D. Ravindranathan, Pathy and Kannan from interferring with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property pending disposal of the suit by an order to the effect that both the parties would not make any construction till the disposal of the suit and that the hearing of the suit would be expedited. The plaintiff, appellant in the appeal, has filed the writ petition (W.P. No. 8418 of 1993) for a mandamus/direction for restoration of the possession of the subject property to him, from which it is alleged he has been dispossessed by the 3rd respondent therein and the respondents in the appeal (respondents 5 to 8 in the writ petition) have been put in possession by him (the 3rd respondent in the writ petitio...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)MPLJ564
Srinivasan, J.1. The 6th defendant is the suit is the appellant. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,31,709.25. The plaintiff is the banking company. The first defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 to 5 are partners of the firm. Defendants 2 to 5 applied for loan to the plaintiff bank for purchase of a trawler for fishing trade. The plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000 by its order dated 31.1.1977. The defendants executed a letter of hypothecation on 11.3.1977 in respect of the trawler in favour of the bank. It was also stipulated as a condition that defendants 1 to 5 shall insure the trawler with the insurance company. Accordingly, the trawler was insured with the 6th defendant. The first policy was for the period 27.4.1977 to 26.4.1978. After the expiry of the first policy, the second policy, which was in renewal of the first policy, was for the period 27.4.1978 to 26.4.1979. The first defendant was never regular in payments of the monthly instalments t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »