Chennai Court August 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.
Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC230; 1994(74)ELT549(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner, a public limited company, has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and sought interference in a proceeding sought to be initiated under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', pursuant to a Notice No. 47/84, dated 26-6-1984. 2. According to the petitioner there are various types of PVC resins based on differences in raw materials, specification, manufacturing recipe and process, parameters, which the petitioner has been manufacturing. Such products of different grades of resins are denoted by different code numbers. In the said process of manufacturing they have also manufactured resins 103EP, 104EP and 106M since 1967. Prior to 1975, the value of 104EP, a product of the petitioner was fixed under Sec. 4(1)(a) of the Act and with the introduction of Central Excise Valuation Rules in 1975, the value of these products of the petitioner which, he has been captively consuming, ...
K.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex. (Preventive)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT301(Mad)
ORDER1. Accused No. 11 in C.C. No. 154/91 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The first respondent has filed a complaint against 14 accused for offences under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, as made applicable to customs cases under Section 67 ibid and Section 85(1)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : On 1-3-1989, the officers attached to the Central Excise Head Quarters Preventive Unit, Coimbatore, intercepted a scooter bearing Registration No. TNJ 302 driven by A. 1, he was taken to his house and his premises was searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. The officers found six cotton cloth jackets in a gunny bag in a room. On examination of the jackets, they found two gold biscuit...
The Manager, Canara Bank and anr. Vs. Manoranjitham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ123
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These civil revision petitions are directed against the judgment in M.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1986 on the file of Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act, Pondicherry.2. The respondent in these petitions is the same person viz., Manoranjitham Ammal. She filed R.C.O.P. Nos. S and 6 of 1985 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry, under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for eviction against these petitioners respectively. The allegations in the petition in H.R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1985 are as follows:She is landlady of the demised premise. The respondent is occupying the ground floor as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The petitioner constructed a residential building on the third floor of the demised building and occupied it on 17.8.1984. She was constrained to make a major substantial, material, structural alterations of the demised building by demolition of the demised building to increase its value ...
Damodharan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Rajamanickam Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ371
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These civil revision petitions are filed against the orders passed in four un-numbered money suits filed before the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.2. Short facts are: Regarding C.R.P. No. 1543 of 1988, the suit was filed on 11.12.1981 on the foot of two pronotes dated 30.7.1974 and 20.6.1976 out of which endorsement of payment of Rs. 120 was made in the first pronote on 20.6.1976 According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the debtor and is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act and so the period from 16.1.1975 to 12.6.1979 is to be excluded and so the suit filed on 11.12.1981 is in time. The court below had held that inasmuch as the endorsement in the first pronote was dated 20.6.1976, the period of limitation is to be computed from 20.6.1976. It has further held that the embargo for filing of the suits by virtue of the Debt Relief Act came to end by 15.7.1978 and 3 years therefrom would come to 15.7.1981 and since the suit was filed on 11.12.1981. It...
Komarapalayam Kongu Power Loom Urimaiyalargal Sangam Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad57
ORDER1. This writ petition by petitioner-Sangam for a mandamus to direct the respondents to include equal number of representatives from powerloom sector in the Advisory Committee, constituted by the 1st respondent in Notification dated 18-8-1993 issued under S. 4 of Handloom (Reservation of Articles for production) Act, 1985 (Central Act 22 of 1985).2. According to the supporting affidavit there are only the person from powerloom sector in the abovesaid Advisory Committee out of the total 31 persons in the said Committee. According to the supporting affidavit, the said representation is very much inadequate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also presses the said point vehemently. But, I find that S. 4(1) of the said Act runs as follows :--'The Central Government with a view to determining the nature of any ariticle or class of articles that may be reserved for exclusive production by Handlooms, constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of such persons have, in the opinion of that ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indirani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ703
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance company is not liable in this case to pay the compensation inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle, involved in the accident, did not have an effective licence on the date of accident. Accident occurred on 28.9.1992. The licence which he had expired on 26.6.1992. That was renewed only on 26.10.1992. In between the two dates, the accident had occurred. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the exclusion clause in the policy will come into play.2. The relevant clause in the insurance policy which is marked as Exh. A-9 reads thus:Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that previously such exclusion clauses in the insurance policy were differently worded and when courts had held that even if the dr...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented by the Zonal Manager Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ82
Srinivasan, J.1. The only contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable in this case to pay the compensation inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle, involved in the accident, did not have an effective licence on the date of the accident. The accident occurred on 28.9.1992. The licence which he had, expired on 26.6.1992. That was renewed only on 26.10.1992. In between the two dates, the accident had occurred. Hence, it is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the exclusion clause in the policy will come into play.2. The relevant clause in the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.A-9 reads thus:Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that previously such exclusion clauses in the insurance policy were differently worded and when courts had held that even if the d...
N.V. Kumaran Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Sbe Cbi, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1928
1. This appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IX Addl. Special Judge, Madras, in CC. No. 16/87 dated 8-4-1988 for the offences under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 2. The Prosecution case is as follows :- The appellant was working as the Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Inungambakkam, Madras. Metal Forms (P) Ltd., Redhills, was brought under the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as E.S.I. Corporation) from 29-5-1983. P.W. 1 is the Managing Director of Metal Forum (P) Ltd. and P.W. 2 is the Assistant Manager of this company. P.W. 4, the Inspector of E.S.I. Corporation, attached to its Villivakkam Officer, inspected Metal Form (P) Ltd. on 17-1-1985 and he found that the Security Guards were not brought under th...
Mrs. Vasundara Bhalla and Others Vs. Haridas Bhagat and Company Privat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad172
ORDERS. M. AH Mohamed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the Common Order passed by the learned single Judge on the Original Side of this court in Original Application No. 399 of 1991 and Application No 4026 of 1991 in C.S. No. 584 of 1991.2. The plaintiff/ respondent filed C.S. No. 584 of 1991 on the file of the Original Side of this court for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 8.01 ,000/- in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff against the appellants/defendants. Original Application No. 399 of 1991 was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for grant of an interim injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from selling the suit property to any other person other than the respondent/plaintiff, pending disposal of suit, and the same was granted by the learned single Judge. Application No. 4026 of 1991 was field by the respondent/plaintiff for a direction to deposit a sum of Rs.8,01.000/-being the consideration for the sale of the suit...
M.S.N. Sundarampillai and Co. Vs. N. Palaniswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ502Mad
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involves identical questions of law and the learned counsel on either side also made submissions in common, and therefore, requires to be considered together.2. To appreciate the issues raised, the relevant facts in one of the writ petitions should be referred to W. P. No. 6964 of 1993 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the second respondent from proceeding further in PGIA No. 10 of 1993, the application filed by the first respondent claiming benefits under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules made thereunder.3. The writ petitioner-Company claims that it is carrying on business in the manufacture and sales of beedies, that the beedi and cigar workers are governed by the Beedi and Cigar (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and that the conditions of employment of beedi workers are of various types and most of them are home workers. It is also claimed that the Payment of Gratui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »