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.
South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT280(Mad)
ORDER1. When the petition for stay filed by the Writ Petitioner and the petition for vacating stay filed by the respondents-Department camp up for hearing, arguments were addressed at considerable length and the issues raised also are such, requiring the disposal of the main Writ Petition, the main Writ Petition itself has been taken up for hearing. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners has no objection for the same. 2. The Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent-Tribunal in its Order No. 221/93-C in E/Misc. 705, 1019 and 1187/92-C E/Stay/1697/92-C in E/1426/91-C, whereunder the petitioner was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,75,00,000 (Rs. 1.75 Crores) and to furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount of duty within ten days to enable the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing of the main appeal and consequently, direct the first respondent-Tribunal to proceed w...
Panchachara Mudaliar and 2 ors. Vs. Kandaswami Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC174
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The defendants 1 to 3 who have lost in both the courts below are the appellants in this appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 490/79 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirukoilur for redemption of suit properties and for determination of mesne profits and for costs. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 20-12-1972, the plaintiff executed a conditional sale in favour of Unnamalai Ammal, the mother of the defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and according to the said document he should re-purchase the property within 6 years, after paying the amount and also that failing which the sale will be absolute in favour of Unnamalai Ammal, It is the case of the plaintiff that at the relevant time, the value of the property was more than Rs. 10,000/- and that the patta stood in the name of the plaintiff and that the intention of the parties was to create only a mortgage by conditional sale and not a sale with a clause for re-purchase. It ...
Murugan Talkies Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1129Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the validity of Sections 24 and 25 of the Civil Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 50 of 1981, hereinafter called the Act, is challenged. Besides that, a challenge is also made of the validity of the notification of the Government of India bearing No. S. 35016/1/86-SS/II, Ministry of Labour, dated April 30, 1986.2. Sections24 and 25 of the Act are in the following terms:'24. Application of Act 19 of 1952: The provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as in force for the time being, shall apply to every cinema theatre in which five or more workers are employed on any day, and is if such cinema theatre were an establishment to which the aforesaid Act had been applied by a notification of the Central Government under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 thereof and as if each such worker were an employee within the meaning of that Act.''25. Application o...
Jayaradha Vs. A.N. Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ138
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. This appeal is by the wife against the order of the Family Court in M.C.O.P. No. 482 of 1992 filed by the respondent, for declaration that the marriage solemnised between them on 31.1.1992 at G.S. Kalyana Mandapam, 94, IV Street, Abhiramapuram, Madras is a nullity.2. The material averments in the petition filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act are as follows:The respondent married the appellant on 31.1.1992 according to Hindu rites. Before marriage, the respondent saw the appellant on 13.10.1991 at Raja Annamalaipuram, in a house which belonged to a relative of the appellant. It is averred in the petition that on that day, when some questions were put to the appellant by the respondent, she was not answering promptly. Since there was delayed reaction on the part of the appellant, the appellant's father prompted her in replying the queries. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner assented to the proposal least suspecting that there wa...
Abdul Salam Vs. Hameed Joharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ147
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The legal heir of the deceased first defendant is the revision petitioner predecessor of the respondents. The suit filed by the decree-holder was one for partition. In execution of the decree, it is contended by the judgment-debtors that the execution is barred by limitation, because of expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree. By the impugned order, the lower court rejected the contention and allowed the execution to be proceeded with. The present revision is filed by the legal heirs of the first defendant, challenging the said finding.2. The material facts are as follows:The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 8.9.1969. Final decree was passed on 20.11.1970 as per I.A. No. 82 of 1970. Being a partition suit, the parties are bound to furnish stamps for drafting the decree. On 28.2.1972, the District Court, Nagapattinam issued notice to the parties to furnish stamp papers, granting time till 17.3.1992. The decree-holder did not furnish any sta...
Sun theatre Represented by Its Proprietor, P. Ramasamy Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ364
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18441 of 1994.2. The petitioner who holds a touring cinema licence, has sought for striking down Sub-clause (2) of the Rule 109 of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.3. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that the said rule cannot at all be held to be either opposed to Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has also further held that the licence itself is a concession. While granting the concession, it is open to the Rule-making authority to extend the period of licence and also impose such other conditions as are necessary.4. It is contended before us that having regard to the advancement in cinematography and other technical advancements connected thereto, touring cinema theatre is not i...
A.D.C. Gurusamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ655
ORDERShivaraj patil, J.1. Heard the petitioner. This writ petition came up for admission on 22.11.1994. After hearing the petitioner for some time it was posted to 23.11.1994 with a suggestion to the petitioner that before making further submissions he may look into the decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the subject. The matter was listed on 23.11.1994. As per the practice of this Court it was listed in the list of adjourned admissions. On 23.11.1994 after the motion cases it was taken up in its order and heard till the rising of the court. Under the circumstances the case was adjourned to today.2. Today after finishing the motion cases I reached this matter in the adjourned list and heard the petitioner. At the end of the arguments, when I was about to dictate the order the petitioner submitted that he had sent a telex message to the Honourable the Chief Justice and other two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court at 3.06 p.m. which reads thus:My Writ Petition No. 19295 of 199...
Ponnaiyan Vs. Munian (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ294
A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The defendant who lost before the lower appellate court is the appellant herein.2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 159 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Kallakurichi against the appellant/defendant herein, praying for a declaration and injunction. Briefly it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and that he and his father have been in possession of the properties for the past 30 years. The plaintiff also claimed that he has acquired prescriptive title to the suit properties. According to the plaintiff the defendant has no right for possession of the suit properties and that as the defendant attempted to trespass into the suit properties from 5.7.1978, he filed the present suit.3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to the entire suit properties nor he is in possession as claimed by him. According to the defe...
David C. Arumainayagam Vs. Geetha C. Arumainayagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC418
Jayasimba Babu, J.1. This application is for direction to the respondent to hand over and settle the immovable property of Plot No. 1151 First Block Lane 33, Anna Nagar, Madras measuring one ground and 975 sq,. ft. in the names of the two daughters of the applicant and the respondent--Sumangala born on 18.3.73 and Suganya born on 17.9.74,2. 'The Original Matrimonial Suiit No. 19/93 has been filed by the applicant herein against the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery. Applicant is a Christian, Indian Citizen resident in India and is presently employed as Professor of Medicine at the Annamalai University at Chidambaram. Respondent who is also a Doctor was a Hindu and had converted to Christianity prior to her marriage with the petitioner which was solemnised at the St. Mathais Church, Vepery Madras on 20th May, 1971, has reverted to her original religion, and though still an Indian National i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ronald William Trikard and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR638(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. All these tax cases relate to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee are foreigners and non-residents employed by Sedco International S. A., a non-resident company. Sedco International was engaged in the drilling of oil wells along and off the shores of India on contract with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The said contract was entered into on November 5, 1981, and it expired on January 22, 1985. The terms of the contract, inter alia, provided that the area of operation was to be the seas above the continental shelf of India. The assessees carried on their employment on the oil rig. The rig itself was operated on the seas above the continental shelf. According to the Assessing Officer, in view of the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Government of India's Notification G.S.R. No. 304(E) (see [1983] 142 ITR 11), File No. 5147/F. No. 133(79)/82 TPL, dated March 31, 1983, issued under the Territorial Waters, Continental S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »