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.
State by Sub-inspector Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1600
1. This appeal is by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused, who had been charged under Section 3(a) of Railway Property Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. According to the prosecution, on information, after obtaining search warrant, P.W. 1, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Madurai, searched the house of the accused, and it was found that there in the house the accused was in possession of two bushes and one ladder belonging to the railways. The accused was chagesheeted. The accused denied the charge. The learned Magistrate who tried the case on consideration of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the State has not proved that the said bushes M.Os. 1 and 2 and the ladder - M.O. 3 belonged to the railways. Therefore, he acquitted the accused. 3. Now in the appeal it is contended that the finding that it has not been proved that the M.Os. are belonging to the railways is erroneous and it is against the evidence. In this case, admittedly ...
integrated Exports Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT565(Mad)
ORDER1. The common question that arises for consideration in the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions is, whether the order passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of its power under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, has to be stayed or not. 2. The 1st respondent has passed a common order dated 16-4-1993 directing the petitioners in each of the writ petition to pre-deposit certain amounts towards penalty. There is no dispute that the petitioners have preferred appeals to the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and pending the appeals, the petitioners filed application for waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty. The common order passed by the 1st respondent in the interlocutory application seeking waiver of pre-deposit is the subject matter of the writ petitions. 3. Under the Proviso to Section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdic...
The Official Receiver Vs. Ariya Boyan S/O. Veera Boyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ537
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in C.M.A.No. 177 of 1985 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Salem, confirming the order passed in I.A.No. 123 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.2. Short facts are: the respondents filed debtors petition for adjudicating them as insolvents in I.P. No. 17 of 1982 on the file of Sub Judge, Namakkal. The insolvency court allowed the petition and the estate of the insolvents was vested with the Official Receiver. While so, the respondents filed I.A. No. 123 of 1984 under Section 28(5) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, praying for release of the properties from the administration of the Official Receiver. That was resisted by the Official Receiver. After enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, had allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Official Receiver had filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 177 of 1985 and having failed there, has come forward with this civil revision petition....
The Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality Vs. P. Palanivelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ28
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.4.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6283 of 1993. At the stage of admission, the first respondent has put in appearance through counsel. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the first respondent herein sought for quashing the order bearing No. Na. Ka. No. 9598/92/Aa. 6, dated 5.3.1993 terminating the lease granted in his favour in respect of the premises situated at Nagapattinam belonging to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,016 for a period of three years from 1.3.1992. The case of the appellant is that as the first respondent failed to pay the rent regularly in terms of the lease, the appellant had no alternative but to terminate the lease. The learned single Judge has interfered with the order on the ground that the lease has been terminated without affording an opportunity to the 1st respondent to explain the circums...
S. Pakkiaraj Vs. S.N. Kulasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ91
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. C.M.P. No. 8475 of 1993 is for excusing the delay of 134 days in filing the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1992 in O.S. No. 250 of 1988 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore.2. Though it is not specifically stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners admits that the copy application for the abovesaid judgment and decree dated 16.10.1992 was made only after 90 days from the abovesaid date 16.10.1992. Yet, according to the said counsel, the civil miscellaneous petition cannot be dismissed on the footing of the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in The Land Acquisition Officer v. V. Kannan Pillai (1992) 2 L.W. 28. I was also a party to the said Division Bench judgment and the said judgment only concurred with the earlier judgment of Ratnam, J. in Ramalingam Pillai v. Arunachalam Pillai : (1988)2MLJ139 .3. The submission of the said learned Counsel is that even when the copy applicat...
Farooq Ahamed Vs. Mohammed Hanif and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ90
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Though order was pronounced in the abovesaid civil revision petition on 23.4.1993, just prior to the summer vacation, before I could sign the order, I felt further elucidation of the point involved was necessary and that it would also be better if notice also goes to the Government Pleader since the matter involves court-fee question. Accordingly, pursuant to my order dated 14.6.1993, after notice had gone to the Government Pleader, the case was argued by both the Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and I pass the following order, which only reiterates the relief given already, with a slight difference in the reasoning.2. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered, the respondents have been served privately in the third week of March itself. When service was sought to be made through court, the 1st respondent had refused to receive the notice. No doubt, with reference to the 2nd respondent, second batta was filed and it is not clearly know...
Khivraj Motors Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR462(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Messrs. Khivraj Motors Ltd., Madras-6 (petitioner for short, 'the company'), it is said, is a company registered under the Companies Act and is a regular assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The companies like the petitioner were relieved of the obligation to pay wealth-tax, as a consequence of suspension of wealth-tax on companies with effect from April 1, 1960, by the Finance Act, 1960 (13 of 1960). By section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 (11 of 1983), with effect from April 1, 1983, wealth-tax was revived in a limited way on and from the assessment year 1984-85, in the case of closely-held companies. The said section 40 was further amended by the Finance Act, 1988 (26 of 1988). 2. The petitioner-company owns assets in the shape of property at Nandhanam, as well a property at Delhi, apart from other assets. The company, it appears, was subjected to wealth-tax assessment, ever since the assessment year 1985-86 onwards. For the four assessment years, namely, 1985-8...
Popular Dyes and Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Aiyswarya Chemic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas610(Mad)
Thangamani, J. 1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 1069 of 1992, on the file of the XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. The first accused is a public limited company while the second and the third accused are its managing director and joint managing director respectively. The respondent herein, Aiyswarya Chemicals, has preferred the complaint against the petitioners alleging that in part settlement of the amount due to the complainant, accused 2 and 3 in their capacity as managing director and joint managing director, respectively, issued these cheques on behalf of the first accused : 1. A cheque for Rs. 20,000, dated September 19, 1991. 2. A cheque for Rs. 5,000, dated October 1, 1991. 3. A cheque for Rs. 10,000, dated September 15, 1991. 4. A cheque for Rs. 10,000, dated September 30, 1991. 2. When they were presented for payment on December 14, 1991, they were returned with the endorsements 'excess arrangement' 'insufficient funds'. Thereupon, the complainant...
Popular Dyes and Chemicals (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Aiyshwarya Chemica ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas209(Mad)
Thangamani, J. 1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 3065 of 1992, on the file of the Eighteenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. The first accused is a private limited company while the second and the third accused are its managing directors and the joint managing directors, respectively. The respondent herein Aiyshwarya Chemicals has preferred the complaint against the petitioners alleging that in settlement of the dues of the first accused company, the third accused in his capacity as joint managing director, handed over a cheque for Rs. 1,55,000 dated December 15, 1992, drawn by him in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented for payment, it was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereupon, the complainant sent a notice dated March 7, 1992, to all the three accused as contemplated under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice was served on the second accused on March 9, 1992. Notices sent to the first and the t...
Corporation Litho Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT463(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. By an interim order dated 27-4- 1993, I directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- on or a before 31-5-1993 as a condition for staying the demand for payment of penalty. That amount has been paid though after getting an order of extension. The Writ Petition itself is directed against the order relating to waiver of pre-deposit in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal has very carefully and judiciously considered all the aspects of the case and the difficulties of the petitioner before holding that as a condition for the waiver of pre-deposit, the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. I am fully satisfied that the Tribunal has passed a very correct and judicious order. But, in matters like this, the plea of the party that he is really unable to pay the entire amount of Rs. 20 lakhs cannot be ignored and that is the reason for filing the present W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »