Chennai Court November 1996 Judgments
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT313(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 13572/92 and 14761 of 1992 have sought for writ of certiorari to quash the Order No. 52/92 - C. No. V/52/30/7/91, dated August, 1992 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-I Division, and the Order No. 46/92, dated 25-8-1992 and No. 47/92, dated 27-8-1992 - C. No. V/52.06/3/74/89-Cell of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13572/92 has filed W.P. No. 9844 of 1993 for writ of certiorari, to quash the Order No. VIII/48/4/91/6130, dated 29-3-1993 of the first respondent, i.e., Assistant Collector of Customs & Anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin. The petitioner in W.P. No. 14761 of 1992 has filed W.P. No. 11129 of 1993 challenging the order No. VIII/48/4/91-DBK, dated 1-6-1993 of the first respondent - Assistant Collector of Customs & Anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin with a prayer to quash it. 2. In all these writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration of similar facts. Hence t...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC74
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An interesting question on the scope of Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as to whether a prior opportunity should be given to an employee-person by an employer before making deduction for absent from duty under Section 9 of the Act or not, arises in this writ petition.2. The facts of the case are not in much dispute. The petitioner is a public sector Motor Transport Undertaking. The second respondent is an employee of the petitioner-Corporation, who joined in service as bus conductor on 1.12.1978. The second respondent did not report for duty on 15.8.1983 and hence, he was marked absent on that date. According to the petitioner, he reported for duty at about 13.00 hours on the next day. The petitioner alleges that without producing the fitness certificate from the Medical Officer of the Pandian Roadways Corporation Hospital, the second respondent tried to join the duty. Hence, the second respondent was d...
Tag this Judgment!U.R. Narayanasamy Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ194
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24.4.1995 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. J 769 of 1996 and W.M.P. Nos. 2724 and 2725 of 1996. In. the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated and completed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act XXXI of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The acquisition proceeding was initiated by publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 20.5.1990. The acquisition also came to be finalised by passing the award on 20th March 1981, in award No. 5/81-A by the Special Tahsildhar, (HW) Coimbatore.2. The learned single Judge has declined to exercise his jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of laches, as he come forward with the writ petition only in the year 1996, in respect of the acquisition proceedings, which had became final in the year 1991.3. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroja Vs. A.J. Boss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ479
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The petitioner/landlady has preferred this revision against the order passed in M.P. Noi363 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 1973 of 1986 refusing to pass consequential order directing eviction of the respondent.2. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 1973 of 1986 for eviction. She also filed M.P. No. 63 of 1987 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. When it was allowed R.C.A. No. 770 of 1987 was taken. The respondent obtained stay in the said R.C.A. Hence consequential eviction order was not passed in the main R.C.O.P, No. 1973 of 1986. When R.C.A. No. 770 of 1987 was dismissed, the respondent preferred C.R.P. No. 1835 of 1989. On 5.11.1990 this Court dismissed the C.R.P: and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller in M.P. No. 163 of 1987. dated 20.10.1980 under Section 1(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Ren Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. As far as the main R.C.O.P. No. 1973 of 1986 is...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gnanaiahpandiyan Vs. Pazhaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2412; I(1997)DMC238
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-2-1995, dismissing the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 3124 of 1994, filed by the petitioner/husband to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed in M.C. No. 7 of 1993, dated 23-11-1993, by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Srivilliputhur. 2. The facts of this case involving a chequered history are quite agonizing. (i) The petitioner Gnanaiahpandiyan, a Police Constable, attached to Soonamedu Police Station, Chengai M.G.R. District, is the husband. The respondent Pazhaniammal of Cheithur village, Kamarajar District, is the unfortunate wife. (ii) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 24-1-1980 in a temple Arulmigu Thirukanneswarar Alayam, at Seithur, under Hindu rites in the presence of the elders of both the families. Some months later, the wife came to know that the petitioner/husband had illegal contact with several women. Ultimately, the wife was driven out from the matrimonial home, after subjecting her to cru...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Enfield India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR426(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 518 of 1982, dt. 5th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment made under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, for the asst. yr. 1974-75 as invalid in law ?' 2. The assessee is a company, carrying on business at Madras. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75, for which the previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1973, was completed under s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the ITO noticed that expenditure was allowed by way of remuneration to directors under s. 40(c) of the Act in excess of the ceiling prescribed and that the weighted deduction under s. 35B was improperly allowed on an amount of Rs. 1,34,411, which represented commission paid to U. K., and Nepal parties. He, theref...
Tag this Judgment!A. Doraisamy Vs. Director of School Education, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ578Mad; (1997)IMLJ196
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 907 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot Ambedkar District, who failed before both the Courts below, has filed the above second appeal. The suit in question was filed for declaration and also for a consequential direction to the defendant/respondent to correct the date of birth of the appellant in his S.S.L.C. Book as on September 2, 1943 instead ic of January 10, 1938 and have such correction made in all other records that the date of birth of the appellant was September 2, 1943. In the Plaint presented before the trial Court, it was claimed that during the month of January, 1994 there was a partition in the family of the appellant in the presence of his father, aged about 94 years and other members and during the course of discussion at that time the second senior brother of the appellant by name Chinna Anumanthan claimed that he was 60 years old and this created a doubt and inquisitiveness in the appellant to veri...
Tag this Judgment!Nazar @ Mohamed Nazar and 2 ors. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC409
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This revision was sought to be admitted to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief-Judicial-Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.M.P.N0.80 of 1996 in S.C.No.64 of 1994 dated 7th August, 1996. dismissing a petition filed on behalf of the revision petitioners who are accused Nos.7,8 and 9 for their discharge Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It was alleged that at about 9.00 P.M. on 28.5.1988 on the corner of Sivan Temple in Koothanallur Police Jurisdiction, with the common object of forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with an intention to do away with the deceased by name Pakkirisamy, the three revision petitioners who are accused 7,8 and 9 along with seven other accused attacked the said person with deadly weapons like Aruval, firewood and thereby caused multiple injuries to the deceased, whereby he was admitted into the Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the third day. The l...
Tag this Judgment!A. Doraisamy Vs. Director of School Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ196
Raju, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 907 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot Ambedkar District, who failed before both the courts below, has filed the above second appeal. The suit in question was filed for declaration and also for a consequential direction to the defendant/respondent, to correct the date of birth of the appellant in his S.S.L.C. Book as on 2.9.1943 instead of 10.1.1938 and have such correction made in all Other records that the date of birth of the appellant was 2.9.1943. In the plaint presented before the trial court, it was claimed that during the month of January, 1994 there was a partition in the family of the appellant in the presence of his father, aged about 94 years and other members and during the course of discussion at that time the second senior brother of the appellant by name Chinna Anumanthan claimed that he was 60 years old and this created a doubt and inquisitiveness in the appellant to verify about his own da...
Tag this Judgment!Rajanayakam Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ470
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Sa. 1.17089/93 dated 24.9.1993 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein confirming the order of the second respondent made in No. K.R. No. 192 of 1992, dated 8.2.1993, quash the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue Kudiyiruppu Patta to the petitioner in the plot having an extent of 2 cents in original S. No. 3715/107 (R.S. No. 23418) R.C. Street, Vilavancode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.2. The petitioner applied to the second respondent for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in respect of the above mentioned property. He has filed the application in the prescribed form found at page No. 5 of the typed set. He also made an application dated 16.6.1992 praying for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in his favour. The second respondent passed the order No. K.R. 192/92, dated 8.2.1993 rejecting.his app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »