Chennai Court April 1995 Judgments
Sugarcane Growers and Sakthi Sugars Shareholders' Association Vs. Sakt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas646(Mad); (1995)IIMLJ469
Srinivasan, J. 1. Sakthi Sugars Limited, the respondent herein, was registered on May 12, 1961, as a public limited company. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,00,000 divided into 1,50,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 5,00,000 redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued capital as on March 31, 1993, was Rs. 11.98 crores and as on March 31, 1994, Rs. 15.48 crores. The subscribed and paid-up capital as on March 31, 1993, was Rs. 11.86 crores and Rs. 15.36 crores on March 31, 1994. 2. Sakthi Soyas Limited is a public limited company registered on March 26, 1986, with an authorised capital of Rs. 11,00,00,000 divided into 90,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 2,00,000 redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital as on March 31, 1993, and March 31, 1994, is Rs. 8.15 crores. Hereinafter this company will be referred to as 'the transferor company'. 3. At a meeting of the board of directo...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohamed Ali Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR839(Mad)
1. The petitioner is challenging the order permitting the complainant to examine certain witnesses on the grounds that such course has to be resorted to only after letting in evidence and invited my attention to the decision of this court in Srinivasan R. v. G. Shanmugha Vaduvu 1983 LW (Crl.) 355. That was a case instituted on a private complaint. In that case, the complainant file a petition under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for examining a person as a court witness. In such a situation, this court took the view that it is mandatory to form an opinion that the new evidence appears to be essential and just for the decision of the court. But, in the instant case, an additional list of witness has been given by the complainant who seeks for issuance of summons. Section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates that the magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and the magistrate may, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Andavar Arul Lorry Service Vs. Pioneer Bottle House and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC150
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 10522 of 1987 on the file of the VI, City Civil Court, Madras, has preferred this second appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below for a sum of Rs. 22,380/-, granted against the appellant as wall as the 1st defendant (2nd respondent herein). The said sum was decreed as damages for the loss of goods in transit due to accident. According to the plaintiff, the appellant was the booking agent, to whom the goods were entrusted by the plaintiff for transport and the 2nd defendant is the owner of the lorry, in which the goods were carried, on being entrusted by the appellant for transport. There was no notice, cannot be raised for the first time in the second appeal. (Vide State of Bamadee AIR 1971 Orissa 227. Further, State v. Pancharatna Devi : AIR1980Pat212 (DB) also held that though Section 80 C.P.C. notice is mandatory, the right may be waived by the petitioner, for whose benefit it has been provided. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Vs. the Director of School Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC126; (1995)IIMLJ339
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 23.12.1994 in this second appeal, I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as learned counsel for the defendant - respondent. The plaintiff has failed in both the Courts below.2. The suit is for declareing the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 13.11.1937 in her S.S.L.C. Book and for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to effect change of plaintiff's date of birth as 13.11.1937 instead of 26.4.1937.3. The suit has been concurrently dismissed by both the Courts below. Though learned counsel for the appellant argues that pursuant to Ex.A.3, the horoscope of the plaintiff, Ex.A.1, the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal authority relating to the plaintiff, the relevant government Orders and the oral evidence, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the suit itself is not maintainable under Section 34 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Fathuma and anr. Vs. K.S. Kadherkani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ544
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 33 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, are the appellants in this second appeal against the concurrent decree in favour of respondent for possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 750.2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he is the court-auction purchaser of the suit property pursuant to the sale certificate Ex.A-1 dated 30.10.1971. Further, according to him, he got possession of the suit property through court on 29.11.1971 as per Ex.A-2 and on 1.1.1972 the same property was let out to the defendants, who are none other than the daughters, of one Seeni Mohammed Rowther, pursuant to the decree against whom, the above said court auction took place. The further case of the plaintiff is that the said defendants- tenants paid monthly rent of Rs. 25 upto the end of April, 1974, but they did not pay subsequently that hence the suit was laid on 13.3.1984 and that the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Sugarcane Growers and Sakthi Sugars Shareholders' Association, represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ469
Srinivasan, J.1. M/s. Sakthi Sugars Limited, the respondent herein, was registered on 12th May, 1961 as a Public Limited Company. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,00,000 divided into 1,50,00,000 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 5,00,000 Redeemable Cumulative Preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued capital as on 31.3.1993 was 11.98 crores rupees and as on 31.3.1994. Rs. 15.48 crores. The subscribed and paid up capital as on 31.3.1993 was Rs. l 1.86 crores and Rs. 15.36 crores on 31.3.1994.2.. M/s. Sakthi Soyas Limited is a public Limited Company, Registered on 26.3.1986 with an authorised capital of Rs. l1,00,000,000 divided into 90,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and 2,00,000 redeemable Cumulative Preference Shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued subscribed and paid up capital as on 31.3.1993 and 31.3.1994 is Rs. 8.15 crores. Hereinafter this company will be referred as 'the transferor company.3. In a meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent- co...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamalai Vs. P. Kaliappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ48
Jagadeesan, J.1. The debtor in I.P. No. 82 of 1972 has filed this appeal against the order, dismissing an application for setting aside the sale.2. The appellant has filed the application for setting aside the sale held on 26.6.1976 on the ground that there was no proper notice and for the auction held on 26.6.1976 notice was given only on 25.6.1976. The other ground is that except the first respondent there is no other bidders in view of the want of notice and the price which it fetched is also very low. There are irregularities in the conduct of the sale because of the lack of proper publication of the notice.3. The first respondent has filed counter, denying the averments made by the appellant in the application and also contended that the application filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.4. It is the case of the appellant that the sale was held on 26.6.1976 and the same was confirmed on 26.12.1976. The application for setting aside the sale was filed on 27.1.1977, since th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. M. Malayandi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad1
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. Writ Appeals 849 of 1993 and 1311 of 1994 go together. Similarly, Writ Appeals 850 of 1993 and 1310 of 1994 go together as also Writ Appeals 852 of 1993 and 1312 of 1994.2. In Writ Appeals 849, 850, 852 of 1993 and 710 of 1993, the common question that arises for consideration is as to the scope of the lease deed granted in favour of the respondent in each one of these writ appeals. According to the case of the appellant, the respondent in each one of the appeals is not entitled to quarry block stones as he is permitted under the leases only to quarry 'Aralai', 'Jalli', 'Soling', 'Ammi', 'Attukkal', 'Latti Vari', Thimmi' and 'Kalthoon', whereas it is the case of the writ petitioners who are the respondents in each one of these appeals that no such restriction is contained in thelease deed, therefore they are entitled to quarry block stones also.3. It is necessary to notice that even though the quarries in question are situate in the patta lands, the lessees are...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Strips Ltd. Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT3(Mad)
ORDERBy an order, dated 30-11-1994, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise confirmed the demand for Rs. 9,45,356/- being the differential central excise duty, short paid, with reference to Notification No. 178/88. He also imposed a penalty of Rupees one lakh. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent and also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The first respondent has considered the matter and holds that, prime facie, the Notification will not apply to the petitioner, and therefore the imposition differential duty is justified. Thereafter they proceed to discuss the balance-sheet and the fact that BIER proceedings are being initiated as reflected in the Director's report to the share-holders. Taking all these things into consideration, the first respondent has said that it is enough if the petitioner pays a sum of Rupees three lakhs, and that too in monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000/-. The entire penalty has been waived....
Tag this Judgment!Sree Pandian Extro Chemicals Private Limited Vs. the Tamil Nadu Indust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC18
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. In the above matter, while passing an order in W.P. No. 5843 of 1994, one of us (AR. Lakshmanan J) has passed orders which almost settled the area of controversy raised except the controversy relating to the rate of interest payable. With reference to the said aspect, it has been stated in the order dated 3.5.1994 as hereunder:'Post the matter after re-opening of the court for orders in regard to fixation of rate of interest'.subsequent to the orders, the petitioner also appears to have performed his obligations otherwise as stipulated in the order referred to supra and got possession of the unit.2. When the matter was taken up today, with reference to the direction about the fixation of rate of interest, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, placed reliance upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dt. 31.3.1993 (The Coimbatore Textiles Rep. by its Proprietor K. Palanisamy v. The Tamil Nadu Industrial...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »