Chennai Court November 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.
East West Freight Carriers (P) Limited Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ179
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Although W.M.P. Nos. 27407 of 1994 and 26382 of 1994 in W.P. No. 17363 of 1994 are posted today, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties accordingly.3. The petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 26.9.1994 passed by the respondent and sought for quashing the same.4. Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order said to have been passed under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984, for short 'the Regulations' is unsustainable on the face of it. He submitted that under Regulation 21 the Collector may subject to the provisions of Regulation 23 suspend or revoke the licence of a Custom House Agent insofar as the jurisdiction of the Collector is concerned, and also order for forfeiture of security amoun...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and anr. Vs. Vasanthi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ388
Srinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this appeal. On the question of negligence, there is overwhelming evidence adduced by the claimants which has not been contradicted by any evidence on the side of the appellants. Hence the finding of the tribunal on the question of negligence is accepted.2. The deceased was aged about 30. He was employed in the Postal Department. The salary certificate is produced according to which he was getting a sum of Rs. 1,357 p.m. He would have certainly continued in service upto 58 but for his untimely death. He had left his wife aged about 28, who is the first claimant and minor son the second claimant. Besides, the parents of the deceased have been impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition. 3. The Tribunal had taken the view that the deceased would have taken 1/3 of his salary for his personal expenses and given the balance to the family. On that footing, the Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,500 p.a. as contribution to the family. I...
Malaya Gounder and ors. Vs. Palanisamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ626
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both counsel, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The appellants have filed the above appeal against the order of injunction granted in I.A. No. 1868 of 1993 in O.S. No. 365 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. The only grievance of the appellants is that the respondents 1 and 2 who have filed the suit for specific performance have not produced any documents to show that they are in possession and even the Ex.A-1 agreement produced by them does not show that possession has been handed over to them. But the trial court has relied upon Ex.A-16, which is a Commissioner's Report, filed before the Tahsildar, Record of Tenancy, and found that the respondents 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit property and granted injunction. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that no Commissioner could be appointed to find out the physical possession of the parties and even if the Commissioner files the report incidental...
P. Palaniappan Vs. the Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC326; (1995)IIMLJ108
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed by the Special Court of Co- operative Appellate Tribunal (District Judge) Madurai in C.M.A.(CS) No. 125/93 dated 31.1.1994.2. The petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,08,500/- in the year 1985 for the purchase of a tractor. He was not prompt in paying the instalments. He fell into arrears. So the Special Officer cum Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 29.6.1993 in RRA No. 433/92-93 attached his movable and immovable properties and brought them for sale by invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act as contemplated under Section 120 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The five items of movable properties attached include one easy chair, one Lakshmi Wet Grinder and 7 kuppama of paddy. The petitioner challenged the said attachment before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madurai in C.M.A (CS) No. 125/93. Holding that Section 1...
R. Francis Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC34
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Collector of Central Excise is pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras. Pending disposal of the appeal, the appellant sought for exempting him from depositing the amount, as per Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The CEGAT rejected the prayer for full exemption and directed him to deposit Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 1,32,896-70 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. He sought for review of that order. That was also rejected by the Tribunal on going into the merits. When the review was to be rejected, he sought for further time to deposit the amount. Accordingly, time was granted for depositing the amount. Not being satisfied with that, he has approached this Court in Writ Petition 16170/94. Learned single Judge by the order under appeal has rejected the writ petition.2. We must point out that at the stage of Section 35-F o...
A.B.T. Parcel Service Vs. C.R. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ129
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit against the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 27.3.1989 in I.A. No. 370 of 1988 in O.S. No. 368 of 1985 allowing that application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent herein for amendment of the plaint.2. The respondent originally filed the suit against the petitioner for the following reliefs:(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff/ respondent is entitled to hold the office of Manager of the Lost Property and Stationery Department of the defendant/ petitioner concern at Coimbatore or any other managerial post of Grade I:(b) Consequent upon such a declaration restraining the defendant from enforcing its order of reversion dated 16.2.1985;(c) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 14,400 with subsequent interests:(d) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of this suit; and(e) Granting to the plaintiff such further or other reliefs as t...
Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. P.M.A.N. Nagarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ348
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Heard. An order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, in ROC. B2/23203/ 84 dated 14.4.1987, in a matter referred to him for adjudication under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1987) by the Joint Sub Registrar 1 of Virudhunagar, with regard to the under valuation of a document for the purpose of Stamp Duty payable under the relevant Act, and the consequent appeal made in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1987 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, and the order of the lower appellate Judge reversing the order of the R.D.O. made on 7.10.1988, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.2. The respondent herein purchased an extent of 98 cents of vacant land, for a sum of Rs. 2,940 situate in Survey No. 131/34 from one Mariyammal of Rosalpatti village. With regard to its value, for the purpose of stamp Duty and general stamps payable on the said instrument, as the Joint Sub Registrar Number I. Virudhunagar, fou...
N. Krishnaswamy Reddiar and ors. Vs. Manickavasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ381
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The first review petitioner Krishnasamy Reddiar along with his brother deceased Ramaswamy Reddiar filed O.S. No. 22 of 1982 against the present respondent Manickavasagam in the Court of District Munsif of Musiri and obtained a decree ex parte on 1.12.1986, Ramaswamy Reddiar died on 4.6.1985 prior to the decree. In E.P. No. 236 of 1988 the first review petitioner sought to execute the decree. Subsequently he filed E.A. No. 943 of 1988 under Order 21, Rule 16 and Section 151, C.P.C. for impleading present review petitioners 2 and 3 who are wife and daughter of Ramaswamy Reddiar L.Rs. of the said Ramaswamy Reddiar in the abovesaid E.P. On 17.11.1993 Learned District Munsif allowed the application. The respondent herein challenged the same before this Court in C.R.P. No. 148 of 1994. Learned single Judge in his order dated 17.2.1994 allowed the C.R.P. and set aside the order in E.A. No. 943 of 1988 and dismissed that application for impleading the present petitioners ...
P. Palaniappan Vs. the Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited D.B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ108
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed by the Special Court of Co-operative Appellate Tribunal (District Judge) Madurai in C.M.A. (CS)No. 125 of 1993, dated 31.1.1994.2. The petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,08,500 in the year 1985 for the purchase of a tractor. He was not prompt in paying the instalments. He fell into arrears. So the Special Officer cum Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 29.6.1993 in H.R.A. No. 433/92-93 attached his movable and immovable properties and brought them for sale by invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act as contemplated under Section 120 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The five items of the movable properties attached include one easy chair, one Lakshmi Wet Grinder and 7 kuppams of paddy. The petitioner challenged the said attachment before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases, Madurai in C.M.A. (CS) No. 125/93. Holding tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. P. Dhanalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR662(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred to following questions for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the estate of the deceased person, subsequent to the date of death, ins assessable under the section 168 of the Act in the hands of the executor (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the application of section 168, there is no scope for application of section 26 and that the estate for the purpose of assessment under section 168 is to be considered as a single estate without any right of co-ownership ?' 2. One K. Periaswamy, who was being assessed in the status of individual up to the assessment year 1975-76, died on August 28, 1975. His wife, P. Balammal, assessee in R.A. No. 1367/ (Mds) of 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »