Chennai Court September 1994 Judgments
M/S M.P.N. Nachiammai Achi, Ruby Tannery and Others Vs. G. Rangasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2988
ORDER1. These three petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings viz., C.C. 632/89, 636 of 1989 and 637 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram for the offence under Section 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Madras-4, is the complainant in all these three cases, before the learned Magistrate against these petitions. The allegations in the complaints are that these revision petitioners who are occupier of the factory premises, are discharging sewage affluent of the factory, causing or likely to cause 'Pollution' without obtaining sanction for the discharge of the affluent. It is also alleged that inspite of notification in the Official Gazatte dated 12-3-1984, these accused did not apply on or before 31-5-1984 for the consent of the Board as contemplated under Section 26 of the above said Act and as they have contravened the provisions of Section 26 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Faizunnissa Begam Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR749(Mad)
Shrinivasan, J. 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the case from the file of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Thanjavur, in No. S. 704/TNJ/dated February 6, 1985, issued under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from taking any action under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act. 2. The petitioner's father, the late Haji M. A. Sathar, was an assessee under the Income-tax and the Wealth-tax Acts. He died on August 16, 1970, leaving behind his wife; the petitioner, his sister and brother as legal heirs. The value of the estate was nearly Rs. 9,00,000. The mother of the petitioner being one of the legal heirs filed the estate duty return under the Estate Duty Act in her capacity as an accountable person. The respondent made certain additions, disallowed the claim for certain deductions to the return figure of the estate and fixed the principal v...
Tag this Judgment!S. and S. Power Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Assitt. Collector of C. Ex., Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT513(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. What is challenged in this writ petition is a mere show cause notice in C.C. No. 608 of 1994, dated 29-8-1994, under which the petitioner was called upon to show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the impugned show cause notice, dated 29-8-1994 shows that the authorities have already concluded on certain issues as regards the classification, which is not correct and that no duty can be levied or demanded, without deciding about the classification list filed by the petitioner on 1-3-1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner went on to argue that on the face of it, no action can be taken pursuant to the said show cause notice. In this regard he states that he is supported by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd., : 1988(35)ELT349(SC) . 3. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the short ground that what is challenged in this writ petition is only a sho...
Tag this Judgment!Gopathy and ors. Vs. Seshachala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ213
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiffs can be held to have lost their title by reason of ouster by the second defendant.2. Learned single Judge has held that Meenakshi and Jayalakshmi were given their share in the income from the suit properties till Jayalakshmi died in the year 1965. Learned single Judge has also referred to the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. P. W. 1, in the course of cross-examination, has stated that Meenakshi and Jayalakshmi were given their share in the income from the suit properties. Learned single Judge has also referred to Ex. A-16 written by the first defendant, in which it is stated that Jayalakshmi obtained her share in the income from the suit properties. Accordingly, after referring to the provisions contained in Rule 2262 of French Code Civil as applicable to Pondicherry, learned single Judge has held that the plaintiffs have not lost their right to the suit properties and that the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Dentro Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ444
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27th September, 1994, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16806 of 1994, rejecting the writ petition. The petitioner/ appellant has established an Industry for manufacturing I.V. saline products and those products are supplied in bottles. The 2nd respondent called for tenders for supply of drugs and other products for the use by the Government Hospitals in the State. The 2nd respondent is under the direct control of the 1st respondent and the tenders have been called for the supply of drugs, medicines, etc., for the period from the date of acceptance of the tender till 30th September, 1995. One of the conditions of the tender, as stated in condition No. 21, is as follows:.I.V. Fluids supplied should be manufactured under Form Fill Seal technology in good quality polyethelene containers.The petitioner has sought for quashing the aforesaid condition and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider it...
Tag this Judgment!Saradha Balakrishnan Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ610
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The parties to the writ petitions are same and the questions which arise for consideration are also the same, though the prayers are slightly different. In W.P. No. 2612 of 1986 the prayer is for issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in RC. No. 44076/A7/84 dated 13.3.1986 on the file of the first respondent (the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras), to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to direct the second respondent, viz., the Secretary Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women, Pallathur, to reinstate the petitioner as Principal with all attendant benefits. The prayer in W.P. No. 3003 of 1986 is similar excepting that it seeks to have the consequential order of the second respondent in his proceedings No. S/85-86/65 dated 17.3.1986 to be quashed in addition to the prayers in the other writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are as follows:The petitioner entered the serv...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balasubramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad329
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered Office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4-4-1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)16; 1995CriLJ2721
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 103 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, North Arcot at Vellore. He was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action has been resorted to. 3. The brief facts are : (a) The accused Kannan, is a resident of Kalarpalayam, situate within the limits of Katpadi Police Station. Poonagavanam, since deceased, was his wife. There was no matrimonial peace and harmony between the husband and wife. There were very often wordy altarcations ensuing between them. The husband-accused suspected the chastity of his wife, the deceased, and as a consequence, and less altercation was stated to have ansued between them. (b) Some time prior to the occurrence, which had happened on 18-4-1986, the deceased wife went to her parents house and returned to the matrimonial abode one week prior to the occurr...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinam and anr. Vs. the Tamilnadu State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ155Mad
ORDERP.S. Mishra, J.1. Petitioner, B. Rangarajan, in W.P.No. 5137 of 1991 has sought for the regularisation of his services with the respondent - Tamil Nadu housing Board in pursuance of the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No. 1603,dated December 7, 1988 read with G.O.Ms. No. 400 dated May 2, 1990 and for consequential benefits.2. Petitioner, M. Rathinam, in W.P.No. 4603 of 1985 has also made a similar prayer and a further prayer to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent, Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Special Division of he T.N.H.B., Coimbatore-21 and to quash me memo A1/4841/82 dated February 16, 1985.3. Petitioner, Rangarajan, has stated that he was employed on Nominal Muster Roll (N.M.R.) basis on February 26, 1979 in the service of the respondent - Board at its Coimbatore Housing Unit under the Executive Engineer of the Special Division. He served to the satisfaction of all concerned and earned two favourable certificates from the Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. P. Hepzi Vimalabai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ1
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1.Writ Appeal Nos. 1419 of 1992 and 530 of 1993 were directed against the order of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. dated 6.4.1992 in W.P. No. 11997 of 1990 and the order dated 26.3.1992 in W.P. No. 7940 of 1992. The learned Judge allwed the above two writ petitions in view of the orders passed by him in W.P. Nos. 1911, 1912 and 2669 of 1990, dated 26.3.1992. Likewise, the learned Judge allowed W.P. No. 7940 of 1992 filed by one N. Vasanthi by following a Division Bench of this Court in Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board v. Ruban Peter, 1990 W.L.R. 1 : (1990) II L.L.J. 92. The learned Judge by following the Division Bench, held that writ petitions in High Court arising at pre-recruitment stage by persons not already 'in service' are maintainable and that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to disputes and complaints with respect to 'recruitment and conditions of service' of persons already appointed. The learned Judge, however, has disagreed with the interpretation p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »