Chennai Court March 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.
Jayabharathi Match Works Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT667(Mad)
1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorari to Call for and quash the records of the first respondent on his file C. No. V/38/15/9/23 CX. Adj. II, of the second respondent on his file order No. 103/81 and of the third respondent on his file order No. 136 of 1984 and quash the orders of the first respondent dated 10-10-1973 as confirmed by the second respondent by his order dated 11-6-1981 and as further confirmed by the third respondent by order dated 2-4-1984. 2. Having regard to the nature of the disposal the writ petition deserves, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the merits of the matter at length. The petitioner is a manufacturer of matches at Gudiyatham. Under the proceedings of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 10-10-1973, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for the alleged offence and violation of Rule 52A on the finding that the offence committed was pre-planned, deliberate and is of a very serious nature warranting a de...
S.P. Shenbagamoorthy Vs. Dr. Chenna Reddy, the Governor, State of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ23
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, calling upon the respondent to show as to under what authority the respondent is holding the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu and pass such further or other orders.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is a social worker doing social work by collecting old clothes and giving them to the poor and needy. He also claims to have participated in the freedom movement. The case of the petitioner is as follows:According to the petitioner, the respondent has been delaying the files that have been sent for his approval and is deliberately postponing to give assents to laws that have been passed by the Legislature sent for his consent in absolute disregard to the present Government and that he is making speeches at functions attended by him on several occasions, creating apprehension in the mind the people of Tam...
M. Prabhulal Vs. Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence, Tiruchy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT663(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard. The petitioner herein was arrested by the respondent, an Investigating Agency, authorised by the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act', on 16-5-1993 at his residence at Trichirapalli town, for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 21, 23 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, followed by the interrogation, recording the statements, he was lodged to judicial custody on 18-5-1993 and since then onwards he was confined to be behind the bars as a remanded prisoner. 2. The facts leading to the arrest of the petitioner, according to the respondent, is that, he is the brain behind the whole episode of transporting 361.6 Kgs. of Opium valued at Rs. 36,16,000 and 66.1 Kgs. of Heroin valued at more than Rs. 132 crores through a lorry to Sri Lanka from India, and that it was intercepted on 15-5-1993 at Thalapallam Village, near Salem and found detected, and that pursuant to the same, several persons including the Driver, Cleaner a...
M. Krishnan Vs. Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot District at ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad53
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22-2-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6151 of 1979. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has come up in appeal.2. The petitioner is an operator of a stage carriage service. He obtained a temporary permit under S. 68F(1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stood prior to its repeal, as no application was filed by the State Transport Undertaking seeking permit on a route included in the draft scheme from Cuddalore to Vellore via Chengam. The temporary permit issued under S. 68F(1C) of the old Act was for the route Veltor to Chengam, Thus, the entire route for which the temporary permit was granted was covered by the draft scheme, Cuddalore to Vellore via Chengam. However, the said scheme lapsed on 30-6-1990 and, as a result thereof, the permit granted to the appellant must be held to have lapsed because it was a permit issued under S. 68 F(1C) of the old...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›