Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC499
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Civil Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. 269 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Polur, for declaration of their title over the suit properties and for the relief of consequential injunction. The defendant, in the written statement has raised an objection that the suit properties, to be precise, items 5 to 7 were not properly valued. The trial Judge after framing issues, examined the witnesses concluded the trial and heard the arguments of both sides and posted the case for judgment on 12.3.1996, 26.3.1996 and again on 29.3.1996. On 29.3.1996, the learned trial Judge passed an order that the trial was concluded on 28.2.1996 after the examination of the oral and documentary evidence and since it was felt that the question whether the suit items 5 to 7 were properly valued or not cannot be decided without any evidence and hence, the trial Judge passed the impug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ131
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 1646 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, has filed this revision against the order of compromise dated 20.8.1992 in the aforesaid original petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that as per the memorandum of compromise the tribunal has recorded compromise without any proof of the same, and that the parties could have been examined before ever the compromise is recorded and since the order being the mechanical one cannot be sustained.3. I find from the certified copies of the order that the tribunal has passed the compromise decree only after satisfying itself with regard to the compromise entered into between the parties. The court below has stated in the order as follows:3. Today petition taken up for hearing. Petitioners 1 to 5 and respondent present. Joint compromise memo filed. Both parties agree to pass an award in terms of the compromise and accordingly an award is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ133
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.268 of 1981, who lost before both the courts below.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,518 with future interest at 9% p.a. on Rs. 3,000 from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realisation.3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the trial court was that the appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,000 from the plaintiff on 5.5.1979 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9% p.a. on demand. It is stated that inspite of the demand made and the notice issued, the defendant not only filed to pay the amount, but issued a reply containing false and untrue allegations driving the plaintiff to the necessity of the suit.4. The defendant/appellant filed a written statement contending that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, that he did not execute any promissory note, that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1997Mad296; 1997(2)CTC617
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-7-1991 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.2214 of 1991. Hence the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18-10-1990 bearing No. 60608/B4/90, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty not on the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- mentioned as consideration amount in the sale deed, but Oil the market value, which, according to the second respondent, was in the order of Rs. 7,06,312.50. Therefore, additional stamp duty of Rs. 56,077/- should be paid, in addition to Rs. 35,750/- already paid. 3. Learned single Judge has taken a view that the market value of the property, as on the date of the execution of the sale deed, has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on the document of conveyance. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent does not call for interference. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ304
Raju, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 608 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who succeeded before trial court but lost before the learned first appellate Judge is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed for the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.10.1977 marked as Ex. A-1 (unregistered agreement of sale) said to have been executed by the first defendant and for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in default thereof, the court to execute the same and for future mesne profits.3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit properties belong absolutely to the first defendant by virtue of a final decree in O.S. No. 285 of 1969 and the first defendant executed an unregistered agreement of sale on 8.10.1977 agreeing the sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,700, that at the time of execution of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,100 was paid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ589
ORDER: In the Government Order first read above, orders have been issued regulating the sale of lottery tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu according to which private lotteries of any kin were not allowed to be sold in this State. The above orders of this Government were challenged in the Supreme Court of India by certain States such as Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and 'Goa and certain other lottery agent. The Supreme Court by its interim order dated 21.4.1994 laid down certain essential concomitants to be satisfied for a 'State organised Lottery' for the purpose of being sold in other States such as the lottery tickets must be printed by the State Government so as to ensure authenticity and genuineness and also in order to avoid the possibility of duplication of such tickets that the State itself must be able to sell the tickets though, if necessary, through a sole distributor or selling agent or several agents or distributors under the terms and conditions of any agenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC719; (1997)IMLJ264
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought a writ of certiorearified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A.No. 4/5832/91 dt. 10.7.91 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to pass an award in respect of the petitioners' lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following:- The petitioners state that they are the owners of the various bits of land, particulars of which are given in para 2 of the writ petition. The said properties were purchased by the first petitioner under different sale deeds. Petitioner No. 2 is his wife and the petitioners 3 to 6 are his sons. There was a partition on 8.3.1989 and the properties were allotted to different petitioners in the said partition. Pursuant to the sale deeds. The petitioners were granted pattas by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ181
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 70 of 1977 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.2. The second defendant appellant is indisputably the daughter of late Sambasiva Pathar through his first wife Angammal, who was said to have died in 1931. Thereafter Sambasiva Pathar married for the second time one Saraswathi who had no issues and after her death, married Kannarnmal the plaintiff who was said to have begotten one son by name Ramalingam and one daughter Kokilamballe the first defendant. Sambasiva Pathar died in 1952 and Ramalingam was the only male issue. He was said to be studying in Loyola College of Madras and from there he was missing from 27.2.1964. Neither he returned any time thereafter nor was he heard of by his mother, his relatives and friends in spite of his mother-the plaintiff having taken all steps to find out her only son. It was also claimed that the mother not only caused search and enquiries to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ264
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A. No. 4/5832/91, dated 10.7.91 and quash the same and consequently direct the third, respondent to pass an award in respect of the petitioners' lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following: The petitioners state that they are the owners of the various bits of land, particulars of which are given in para 2 of the writ petition. The said properties were purchased by the first petitioner under different sale deeds. Petitioner No. 2 is his wife and the petitioners 3 to 6 are his sons. There was a partition on 8.3.1989 and the properties were allotted to different petitioners in the said partition. The petitioners were granted pattas by the Headquarters Additional D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(95)ELT175(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is said to have been founded in the year 1868 as a trading venture. They are engaged in the export of high quality finished leather. The Government of India introduced a scheme of duty drawback in respect of customs and excise duties paid on materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. The said scheme was given a statutory character by the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called as the Drawback Rules). Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules provides for the allowance of drawback on the export of goods specified in Schedule II of the Drawback Rules at such rates as may be determined by the Central Government. The Central Government considers the average rates of duties prevailing at the industry level and fixes the rate, which is called as 'All Industry Rate'. Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules says that where the manufacturer finds that the rate fixed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules is low and is l...
Tag this Judgment!