Chennai Court November 1995 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.
Medopharam Pharmaceuticals Vs. Asstt. Commr. of C. Ex., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT18(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice. The above writ petitions have been filed to forbear the first respondent from invoking the Central Excise Rule 230 action pursuant to the notice dated 9-11-1995 for the recovery of the amounts, which are under dispute by way of appeals before the second respondent in A. No. 513/95 and stay petition E. No. 438/95 (W. P. No. 15717/95) and A. No. 512/95 and stay petition E. No. 437/95 (W. P. No. 15718/95). 2. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions themselves are disposed of finally. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras IV Division, while construing the claim of benefits of exemption Notification 175/86 took the view that the factory owner and the loan licensees are manufacturers and as per paragraph 3 of the Notification No. 175/86, the value of clearance of all the units have to be clubbed and on clubbing, the value exceeds the limit...
R. Jagadeesan, Principal, Victory Tutorial Collage Vs. M.D.K. Kuthalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ491
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. When the Writ Appeal No. 1150 of 1995 preferred against an interim order in W.M.P. No. 7923 of 1995 came up before us for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself. Subsequently it was brought to our notice that W.P. No. 4586 of 1995 also relates to the same subject-matter. Therefore, we directed to post the said writ petition alongwith the writ appeal. Hence, all the three matters are posted together. We have heard both sides. The decision in the writ petitions will have a bearing upon the writ appeal. Therefore, we take up the writ petitions for consideration.2. In W.P. No. 4586 of 1995, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of quo warranto, calling upon the respondents to show under what authority, the respondents 3 and 4 are holding the office of the member of Senate/Syndicate in spite of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P. Nos. 5025 and 5026 of 1992, dated 1.12.1994. In W.P. No. 4827 of 1995, the petitioner has sou...
R. Saravanamuthu Vs. the School Committee of Sengunthar Higher Seconda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC59; (1996)IMLJ498
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28-9-1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13404 of 1995. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition in which the petitioner/appellant sought for issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Educational Tribunal (Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli) from entertaining the appeal preferred under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Learned single Judge has declined to consider this request of the petitioner/appellant on the ground that it is open to the petitioner/appellant to put forth all the contentions before the Educational Tribunal which can decide the question as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. No doubt, the statutory authority or the tribunal exercising the quasi-judicia...
Fazullah Sheriff Vs. Abdul Wahab Khan and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC180
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The predecessor in title of the respondents herein filed the suit O.S. No. 5962 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit land or both the land and the superstructure after payment of compensation to the defendant for superstructure and for other consquential reliefs.2. The defendants, who is the petitioner herein, filed a written statement, contesting the claim. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 26.2.1973 in the following terms:-'A' 1. That the defendant is directed to deliver vacant possession of the land without superstructure.2. That the first defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 90/- being the arrears of rent and damages from 1.10.67 to 30.9.70.3. That the defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs. 2.50 per month being subsequent damages till possession is delivered.4 That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 24.95 ( Rs Twenty four pais...
P. Muthupillai Vs. A. Thirumalai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ504
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is by the 2nd defendant, who failed in the courts below. The suit property originally belonged to one Sri Renga Nachiar Ammal, who purchased it under a sale deed, dated 5.12.1939. Her husband Alagia Singam Iyengar died in July, 1931. It is the case of the plaintiff that he executed a will, empowering his Wife to adopt any one of the sons of her brothers. That will was executed on 9.5.1931, the Registration copy of which is marked as Ex. A-2. Thereafter, Sri Renga Nachiar purchased the property under Ex. A-1. She executed a settlement deed in favour of her sister under Ex. A-4 dated 29.5.1942, giving her a life interest, with a provision for reversion to her heirs, after the death of the life-estate holder. On 1.6.1941 Sri Renga Nachiar adopted the plaintiff, who was a son of her brother, and a deed of adoption was executed and got registered. Registered copy of which is marked as Ex. A-5. Sri Renga Nachiar died on 25.3.1943.2. Andal Ammal, the life-estate h...
R. Saravanamuthu Vs. the School Committee of Sengunthar Higher Seconda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ498
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 28.9.1995 passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P. No. 13404 of 1995. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition in which the petitioner/appellant sought for issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Educational Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tiruchirapalli, from entertaining the appeal preferred under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Learned single Judge has declined to consider this request of the petitioner/appellant on the ground that it is open to the petitioner/appellant to put forth all the contentions before the Educational Tribunal which can decide the question as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. No doubt, the statutory authority or the Tribunal exercising the ...
S. Dhanasekaran Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad334
ORDER1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to release the petitioner's Matador Van, bearing Regn. No. TN 29-Y-1425.2. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of the writ petition states that he purchased the Matador Van bearing Regn. No. TN-29-Y-1425 in a public auction held on 3-2-1994, conducted by the 2nd respondent herein, for a sum of Rs. 89,653/- and on 4-5-1994, by an endorsement, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner, with effect from 4-2-1995. It appears that the said vehicle was seized by the 2nd respondent for offences under the Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1892. By an order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-12-1993, the said vehicle was confiscated and on 3-2-1994 it was brought for sale through public auction and the petitionerpurchased the same for a sum of Rs. 89,653/-. While so, on 6-8-1995, the 1st respondent-Corporation...
Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Arvind Steels (P) Ltd. and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas425(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The plaintiff above-named filed a memo under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to stay the proceedings in C. S. No. 439 of 1992, on the ground that no suit for recovery of money or enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loan or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as'the Board'). In view of the said amendment to the Act by Amendment Act 12 of 1994, the company suit cannot be proceeded with inasmuch as there is a counter - claim seeking recovery of the money against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that since the plaintiff is a sick industrial undertaking and due to the amended provisions of section 22 of the Act, the suit cannot be proceeded with as the provisions ...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC18; 1996(81)ELT201(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J 1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 8.2.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 7793 and 7588 of 1993 respectively. Petitioner is the same in both the writ petitions and it has sought for quashing the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 2.4.1992 adjudicating the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1987 to 7.10.1990 and also the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated 26.6.1992 adjudicating the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the period from 8.10.1990 to 29.2.1992. 2. Even though before the learned single Judge a preliminary objection was raised that as the petitioner has substantive right of appeal against both the orders, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted and it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, the learned single Judge has overruled the preliminary objectio...
Saravanan and 4 ors. Vs. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC21
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The decree-holders are the petitioners herein. The decree- holders/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 190 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam to recover a sum of Rs. 1,275.50 from the judgment-debtor. E.P. No. 158 of 1987 was filed. In the said petition, the respondent/judgment-debtor pleaded that he was in the Military service from 1953 to 1973 and he took part in the wars and he was inflicted with injuries. He was hospitalised for six months, and therefore he is not in a fit state of health to be detained in the civil prison. The Execution Court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor is not in a fit state of health to be detained in the civil prison. Therefore, by applying the provisions of Section 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the execution petition. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the decree holders.2. The learned counsel app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »