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.
S.A. Shajahan and Others Vs. R. Kahdar Beg
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1282
ORDER1. The accused in P.R.C. 10/89 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Salem, have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The Respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under S. 307, IPC (2 counts), against A1 and A2 and under S. 307 read with 34, IPC against A3 and A4 and against A1 to A4 under Ss. 450 and 452, IPC. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : Accused 1 and 2 are the brothers of the complainant's wife Mumtaj Begum. A3 is the co-brother of the complainant. A4 is the wife of A3. There is enmity between the complainant and accused 1, 3 and 4 for the past 14 years. Arrangements were made for the marriage of the complainant's sister-in-law Hajirabai. With a view to stop that marriage, at the instance of accused No. 1, his wife had written letters containing false allegations and consequently the marriage talks came to an ab...
A. Munuswami Vs. R. Sethuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad375
1. In both the above second appeals, one A. Munuswami is the appellantand one R. Scthuraman is the sole respondent, Two suits were filed on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchira-palli, one by the respondent namely, O.S. No. 93 of 1982 and the other by the appellant namely, O.S. 213 of 1982. O.S. No. 93 of 1982 is for a declaration that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the appellant. There was also a claim for rent or damages for use and occupation. O.S. No. 213 of 1982 is for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession of the very same property. For the purpose of convenience I will refer to the parties Munuswami as the appellant and Sethuraman as the respondent. The second appeals have been argued at length and I am of the opinion that it will be convenient to refer to the pleadings and the documents filed in the case before referring to the judgm...
Mysore Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Cus., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT33(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 15th day of March 1994 and on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 18-9-1984 and made herein and the records relating to the order in the aforesaid prayer to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. S. R. Sundaram, Additional Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents the court made the following order :- The above writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from levying and collecting additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Central Act 51 of 1975 on all imports of orthoxylene by the petitioner through the port of Madras. 2. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition claims to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1...
Tamilnadu Chromates Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(72)ELT834(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The petitioner is the appellant. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 21st December, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge on W.M.P. 31506 of 1993 filed in W.P. 20170 of 1993. When the writ appeal came up for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition, therefore the writ petition was directed to be posted along with this writ appeal. Accordingly, Writ Petition 20170 of 1993 is also posted for hearing along with this appeal. We have heard both sides. As the decision in the writ petition will also dispose of the writ appeal, we first consider the writ petition. 2. The petitioner/appellant has sought for question the order No. G. IV/16/104/92 Policy, dated 27-10-1993 passed by the third respondent and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from insisting payment of the central excise duty by the petitioner company or taking any proceedings for recovering the same during the operation of the scheme framed by the Board for Industrial...
Thirupur Exports, Madras Vs. Dy. Regional Director Esic, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ39Mad
ORDERJanarthanam, J. 1. M/s. Thirupur Exports (petitioner), located at No. Y/205, Plot No. 4/521, Fifth Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras - 40, is an establishment covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948 for short 'ESI Act') required to pay contributions, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 40 thereof read with Regulation 29 and 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, for short ('Regulations') framed under the ESI Act and its Code No. is 51/19162-18. It had been exporting garments. Such garments had been stitched, both within and outside its factory premises. Tailoring charges for garments, stitched outside, had been paid by it and the same had been duly accounted for. 2. The Inspector verified the records of the factory on August 16, 1989 and the verification revealed tailoring charges paid to garments stitched outside for the period between April 1, 1985 and March 31, 1989. Such tailoring charges had been paid to immediate emplo...
P. Rajasekaran Vs. the Bank of Baroda Represented by Its Regional Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ47; (1994)2MLJ54
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in W.P. No. 998 of 1992 is as follows:.to call for the records in Roc. 60079/90 (D. 10) dated 15.10.1991 of the fourth respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently forbear the respondents 1-3 from proceeding further by the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus.2. Facts are:The name of the petitioner herein was sponsored by the Board for appointment in the clerical cadre to the first respondent bank and the first respondent, at the time of appointment, insisted the petitioner to produce a community certificate. As such, the petitioner came up before this Court earlier in W.P. No. 9063 of 1986 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent bank to appoint him as clerk on the basis of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar Attur, dated 13.8.1992 to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. By order dated 7.2.1989, W.P. No. 9063 of 19...
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Others Vs. Syed Fatima Nochi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad88
ORDER1. The respondents in M. C. No. 11 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed a petition against the petitioners under Section 4(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The allegations in that petition are briefly as follows:- The petitioner and Syed Ahmed Moulana got married on 10-6-1980, according to Muslim Law. Out of lawful wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to two female children, twins, on 6-4-1981. On 12-6-1986; the petitioner's husband pronounced 'Talak'. After 'Talak', the petitioner has not re-married anybody. The petitioner has got no income and no means to maintain her female children. According to Mohammedan Law, her two children are the heirs for his properties....
Utkal Farm and Road Machinery and Another Vs. Union of India and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ30; AIR1995Mad185
1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2762/1977 on the file of the 8th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants in this appeal against the dismissal of the suit. The said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,787.16 was preferred on the basis that the tractors sold by Messrs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Madras to the first plaintiff were sent from Madras to Sambalpur through the defendant railways for being delivered to the first plaintiff at Sambalpur and that at the time of delivery of goods at Sambalpur, there was shortage in the goods delivered. The first plaintiff is the consignee of the goods and he claimed loss sustained due to the above said shortage. The second plaintiff is the insurance company with whom the said tractors were insured. The second plaintiff had already paid the loss sustained by the first plaintiff based on the shortage certificates issued by the defendants under Ex. B.1 and Ex. B.2 in respect of the two consignments of the abovesaid tractors. ...
A.i. Shamsudeen and Others Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas165(Mad); 1994CriLJ3522
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in E.O.C.C. Nos. 312, 317, 380, 320, 296, 270, 319, 288, 339, 349, 366, 335, 314, 353, 306, 283, 275, 491, 316, 381 and 494 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, have filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. 2. In E.O.C.C. No. 312 of 1993, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 9755 of 1993 for an offence under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the FERA'). The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : The Special Director of Enforcement initiated adjudication proceedings against the accused for contravention of certain sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and by his order dated October 23, 1989, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 to the accused and directed the accused to deposit th...
D. Balasubramanian Vs. R. Ramaswamy Naidu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad363
1. Since both the second appeal and the civil revision petition are connected,they are taken up together.2.The 1st defendant in O.S.No.582 of 1986 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court,Madurai,is the appellant in the second appeal and petitioner in the civil revision petition.The said suit was filed by 17 plaintiffs.Plaintiffs 1 to 5,8 to 11 and 13 to 16 and defendants 2 and 3 are respondents in the second appeal and civil revision petition. 3.The suit is for possession of the suit property,which is part of Door No.42 and measures 400 sq.ft.while the entire Door No.42 measures about 700 ft.The appellant also filed C.T.O.P.No.31 of 1987 under S.9 of the city Tenants Protection for purchase of the suit property on the footing that he is tenant of the suit site, over which he has put up his own superstructure. 4. The suit has been decreed concurrently both by the trial Court and the appellate Court in A.S.No.138 of 1981 on the file of the District Court,Madurai.Likewise,the aboves...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »