Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments
S.K. Sundaram Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC26; 1995(80)ELT486(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on Tuesday 18th day of July 1995 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. K. Sundaram petitioner appearing in person and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following order :- The Petitioner, a member of the Bar, has held the writ petition by way of public interest litigation. The petitioner seeks for a direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to make a through probe/investigation in respect of the representation of the petitioner dated 13-6-1995, 21-6-1995 and 24-6-1995 regarding an alleged attempt to export the Indian made Computer Disc by respondents 7 and 8. 2. The Petitioner placed his reliance in a report made in Tamil weekly Magazine 'Junior Vikadan' dated 14-6-1995 under the heading 'Pedipattathu Saraku Kadhi Kalangiyathu Customs'. In short the report is to the effect that Indian made computer Disc valued about ...
Tag this Judgment!Palace-de-wales, Rep. by Its Managing Partner A.S. Sabapathi Vs. the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC146
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is the owner of the theatre 'Palace-de-Wales' at Tirunelveli Junction. The petitioner got the lease of vacant site belonging to the second respondent in the year 1985 and constructed a permanent cinema theatre. The theatre has been functioning all these years. The lease period lastly expired on 30.6.1967. Thereafter the second respondent refused to renew the lease and filed the suit O.S.753/68 on the file of District Munsif, Tirunelveli for recovery of possession. The petitioner resisted the same mainly on the ground that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice Under Section 11 of Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act Ultimately the suit was dismissed on 19.7.73. The second respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.195/74 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirunelveli and the same was dismissed on 5.7.76. The second appeal No. 1976/76 preferred by the second respondent before this court was also dismissed on 13.1....
Tag this Judgment!P. Ravi Vs. Registrar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC462
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Only point urged before us is that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant is vitiated because of the failure of the Authority to adhere to the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that after the enquiry was over, before awarding punishment, the Disciplinary Authority had taken into account certain earlier proceedings in which the appellant was found guilty and awarded punishment without framing a charge with regard to the same. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that unless the earlier punishement is also made one of the charges and a part of the charge memo, the Disciplinary Authority is not entitled to take the same into account. It is submitted by him that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have recorded evidence after issuing the charge memo to the appellant with regard to the earlier punishments.2. We are unable to accept this contention. In so far as the present enquiry is concerned,...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ramaswamy Vs. the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ26
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner's case is that the third respondent herein filed a petition C.D. 165/94 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul-Anna District, Dindigul, for return of certain amount deposited with the petitioner. The Consumer Redressal Forum has allowed the petition by order dated 11.1.1995. The petitioner remained ex parte before the said Forum. The award has been passed against both the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Against the said award only the petitioner alone preferred appeal in Appeal No. 437 of 1995 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the State Consumer Redressal Commission dated 31.5.1995.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Now pursuant to the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission, the t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narayanasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: (1997)IMLJ294
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The assessee is the appellant. The assessment year for these appeals are 1980-81 and 1981-82. The Enforcement Wing Officers had passed revisional order based on slips recovered an the business premises in 1984. Against the said order, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur. The then Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, had sustained the tax levied by the revisional authority. Against that order, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, remanded a portion regarding the tax levied, with a direction to pass a fresh order, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to give explanation. As per the order of the Tribunal, the revisional authority had passed fresh order. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed appeal disputing the liability on the entire revised turnover and levy of penalty. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A...
Tag this Judgment!Dhakshinamoorthy Vs. the Management, Kancheepuram Central Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ338Mad
Raju J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated August 22, 1990 in W.P. No. 7878 of 1987, whereunder the learned Judge by issuing a Writ of Certiorari set aside the order of the Second respondent herein dated August 1, 1986 in T.S.E. Case No. 1/80 rendered in exercise of his powers as the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant was working as an Inspector in the services of the first respondent-Bank. A charge memo came to be issued on the basis of certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. Since the explanation offered was found to be not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted and the Administrative Officer of the Bank conducted the domestic enquiry. On the completion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding all the charges proved against the appellant. A second show cause notice was ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rukmani Devi Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC577
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.1995 in W.P.No.10311 of 1994, whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for a writ of mandamus to implement the orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.22945/A2/92 dated 21.4.1994 and to reinstate the appellant as teacher in the 3rd respondent school with all backwages payable to the appellant during the period of suspension, come to be dismissed.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as a School Assistant in the 3rd respondent School; that she is a daughter of the Correspondent of the 3rd respondent School and also the sister of the Head Master of the said school; that owing to certain personal and family disputes a suit for partition in O.S. No. 103 of 1991 came to be filed on the file of the District Munsif, Tuticorin by the appellant and that the same was decreed in her favour. The defendant in that suit appears to have filed an appeal in ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnan Alias Chinnaswami and Another Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: 1997CriLJ441
Kanakaraj, J.1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C. No. 111 of 1985 on 28-11-1986. Learned Sessions Judge found the first appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He also found the second accused guilty of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The facts leading to the above Sessions Case are as follows :- Both the accused as well as the deceased are living in the village of Samanapudur and they are agriculturists mostly attending to cooly work. Witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 are related to the deceased. The deceasedthe accused is very close to the house of the deceased situate on the south-western side. Second accused is the elder brother of the first accused. The wife of the accused by name Kannammal was suspected to be carrying on...
Tag this Judgment!Thyagarajan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Rural
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1304
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 160 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur, is the appellant in this appeal. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to Imprisonment for life.2. There were two accused in this case. Charges were framed against both the accused for an offence under Section 352, I.P.C., and against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. The 2nd accused Subbaiyan died during trial. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced, found the 1st accused/appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 352, I.P.C., but guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 3. The short facts leading to the occurrence are as follows :- The appellant and the 2nd accused Subbaiyan are brothers. They are residents of Gorikulam in Thanjavur Taluk. The deceased Dhanapal, P.W. 5 Shanmugham and P.W. 6 Munuswami are broth...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Ltd. Vs. M.P. Appadurai Samuel (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ228Mad
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the award dated December 10, 1984 passed in I.D. No. 329 of 1982 by the second respondent.2. The facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following:The respondent No. 1 herein entered the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant on December 31, 1958. He did not suffer any punishment. His services were satisfactory, on the false allegation that the first respondent's services were not satisfactory the Management sent a letter dated April 1, 1981 that the work of the respondent No. l would be watched for a period of three months, and in the event no improvement in the work is found his services would be terminated. However, the first respondent was allowed to continue in service beyond the period of three months, but he received an order of termination dated February 22, 1982 in which it was stated that his services were not satisfactory and it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »