Chennai Court January 1994 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.
Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Ex., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT460(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These two writ appeals are preferred against the common order dated 29-11-1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 20428 and 20429 of 1993. 2. As the appeals lie in a narrow compass, we have directed the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel to take notice for the respondents. Accordingly, the said counsel has appeared. We have heard both sides. 3. The appellants have sought for quashing the show cause notice dated 30-8-1993 bearing O. C. No. 93/93 and also the trade notice dated 5-2-1993 bearing No. 12/93 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise (Technical), Madras. The trade notice is issued on the basis of the circular issued by the Board in File No. 261/76/2/88-CX. 8 (Circular No. 2/93, dated 12-1-1993). Under the show cause notice, the appellant has been directed to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras II Division, as to why the goods mentioned in the show cause notice should not have been removed unde...
S. Sekar Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ591
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:To call for the records relating to the order dated 'Nil' and signed on 22.3.1993 and the consequential order signed on 1.4.1993, passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, and to direct the respondents to receive the prescribed fee for 1993-94 in the form of bank draft and direct the respondents to renew the licence for the year 1993-94.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: In the year 1991, the petitioner had applied for a licence to run a flour mill with 15 H.P. motor in the premises at No. 29, P.V. Koil Second Street, Pudupet, Royapettah, Madras-14, for the 1991-92. The 1st respondent granted Planning Permit No. 101615 dated 9.12.1991 to erect and run a flour mill with 15 H.P. motor. On the strength of such planning permit, the petitioner had purchased a flour mill and motor at a cost of nearly rupees one lakh and leased out the sa...
Canara Bank, Kovilpatti Branch Represented by Its Manager Vs. P. Kanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ43
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsifs Court, Kovilpatti, dated 18.3.1987. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed a plaint under Order 7, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code to recover a sum of Rs. 1,455.76 with future interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum and for costs. This plaint was returned with the direction to State as to how the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff complied with the returns. The plaint was admitted only against the 2nd defendant and not against the 1st defendant. For necessary amendment the plaint was returned. As against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. In the revision the defendants were shown as respondents. The first defendant is the principal debtor and the second defendant is the surety. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, the suit filed is within time because the debt was acknowledged b...
Pillayarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koli Nagarathar Trust by Its Trustees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ459
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner is a Trust owning large extent of land in Tallakulam village within the erstwhile Town Panchayat of Tallakulam. With a view to augment the income of the Trust, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 92, 94, 120 to 126, 130 133, 176/1 and 178 were divided into house plots and the area was known as 'Karpaga Nagar.' A detailed lay out plan was prepared for the total extent of 76.12 acres and an extent of 21 acres was set apart for the formation of roads. The lay-out plan was approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat by its resolution dated 30.2.1972 and 18.5.1972. Pursuant to the said resolution, the Executive Officer of the Tallakulam Town Panchayat issued an order in P.R. No. 2172 dated 19.5.1972 approving the plan. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the approval of the plan, roads, were formed in accordance with a sanctioned plan and handed over to the Panchayat as evidenced by a deed of gift dated 11.5.1972.2. The Madurai City Municipa...
Hansa Vs. B. Muralidharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas315(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 138 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The accused has issued a cheque on May 15, 1993, in his capacity as proprietor of Zareena Traders to the complainant, for Rs. 1,00,000. The said sum is due to the complainant by the said Zareena Traders in which the accused is the proprietor. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his bankers. It was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. A memo to that effect was issued by the Canara Bank dated May 17, 1993. The complainant issued a legal notice dated May 3...
Salar Solvent Extractions Ltd. and Another Vs. South India Viscose Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas540(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in S.T.C. No. 945 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, have filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners, for offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'), the allegations in it was briefly as follows : In respect of purchases made by the first accused from the complainant, there is an outstanding balance of Rs. 20,87,600 and interest thereon. Towards the said liability, the first accused issued three cheques dated December 21, 1991, December 18, 1991 and December 28, 1991, for Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively, in favour of the complainant. Those cheques were signed by the second accused, as managing director of the first accused. The complainant presented th...
V. Punithavathi Vs. S. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas511(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 197 of 1993, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Tiruppur, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows :The accused has placed certain orders for supply of cloth for her business. The Complainant supplied clothes to the value of Rs. 2,92,891. The accused had paid Rs. 1,28,000. For the balance, she issued two cheques dated May 15, 1993, and May 30, 1993, for Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 64,981.25, respectively. When the complainant presented the first cheque for encashment on May 25, 1993, it was returned with a memorandum containing an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. T...
Lipton India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC216(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Lipton India Ltd. (petitioner), it is said, is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 1, Transport Depot Road, Calcutta-700 088. It is having branches all over India, one of which is located at No. 150, Luz Church Road, Madras-600 004. It is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of animal feed at its factory in Singanallur, Coimbatore.2. Assessments for the years 1984-85 to 1986-87 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) (for short 'the CST Act'), it is said, had been completed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle I, Madras-600 006 (first respondent) allowing exemption on the alleged claim of stock transfers from Coimbatore branch to its clearing and forwarding agent at Palghat in Kerala. However, it appears, for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90, similar exemption had been claimed by the petitioner.3. The petitioner's place of business at Coimbatore was stated to have been inspecte...
Maija Ammal Vs. S.P. Maboob Mohammed (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ524
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1980 confirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in I.A. No. 626 of 1979 in O.S. No. 97 of 1974.2. The brief facts leading upto this appeal are as follows: The appellant herein filed a suit against the respondent defendants on the fact of a mortgage bond and obtained a decree giving benefit of the Act 40 of 1978. Since the Act has been repealed by the Act 40 of 1979, he filed an application in I.A. No. 626 of 1979 to amend the decree under Section 16 of the said Act. The first defendant viz., the first respondent opposed the said application and in the counter inter alia it is contended that the Act 40 of 1979 cannot be applied to increase the liability of the respondents and it was intended to further scaling down the debt, the increase of debt of 1 1/2 time over the principal amount and there was no question of scaling down under th...
Balakumaran Textiles Vs. Chennammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas905(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in S.T.C. No. 2710 of 1993, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kovilpatti, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The accused had purchased cotton from the complainant for a sum of Rs. 72,178.16. To discharge the above due, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 19,083.35. After deducting the amount, there was a balance of Rs. 53,094.81 from the accused to the complainant. After demand, the accused issued two cheques dated August 1, 1993, and August 10, 1993, for Rs. 28,094.81 and Rs. 25,000, respectively, towards the said dues. The complainant presented the above two cheques for collection on August 12, 1993. They were returne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »