Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC393
ORDERRaju, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 317 of 1976 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,658 being the value of damaged yarn, including charges, subsequent interest and costs. The 1st plaintiff was the owner and consignor of the goods and the 2nd plaintiff was the Insurance Company with whom the goods were insured. The appellant/defendant, a transport carrier, was entrusted with, by the 1st plaintiff at Madurai on 4.6.1973, 62 cases containing art silk yarn intended for its Bombay office under Lorry Receipt No. SB C 3749 dated 4.6.1973, which were insured also with the 2nd plaintiff. At the destination, about 25 cases were found to be badly damaged by water, out of which, 100 cones containing 200 kgs. of silk yarn were so badly damaged that it had become completely useless for the purpose intended and as a matter of fact, the defendant also issued a damage - cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(104)ELT9(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of parties, this writ petition itself is taken tip for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner M/s. Grasim Industries Limited which is a public limited company has approached this Court against the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal made under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The dispute relates to the adjustments of inputs of Visco Staple Fibre. The petitioner company was directed by the assessing authority, the second respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum to apportion the Modvat Credit between Visco Staple Fibre and Sodium Sulphate. The Commissioner of Central Excise with regard to seven show cause notices by order dated 12-4-1996 made a demand of Rs. 4,11,45,816/- and penalty of a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and direct the petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,45,816/- and the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner company preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ327Mad
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing these petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support of W.P. No. 5863/96 on the file of this Court, and the order of this Court dated April 26, 1996 and made in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. King & Patridge, Advocate for the petitioner in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and for the 2nd Respondent in W.M.P. No. 11207 & 11208/96 and of Mr. R. Lawrence, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent in W.M.P. No. 9125/96 and for the petitioner in W.M.P. Nos. 11207 & 11208/96 the Court made the following order : The writ petitioner is Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, and the second respondent is the workman employed in the petitioner-Corporation as conductor. The petitioner framed certain charges against the second respondent in respect of certain disciplinary action and after holding the domestic enquiry, the second respondent was dismissed from the service by an order dated April 24, 1986. The second respondent p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC50; (1996)IIMLJ563
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The civil revision petition is filed against an order in I.A. No. 16 of 1995 in Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986.2. The civil revision petitioner is the first respondent in O.P. and the respondent in the civil revision petition is the petitioner in election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Ami. The parties are referred to herein as shown in the civil revision petition. The respondent filed a petition in Election O.P. No. 1 of 1986 challenging the election of the civil revision petitioner, on the ground that the civil revision petitioner is not a Hindu and by a false representation that he belonged to Adi Dravida Community, he filed a declaration before the Electoral Officer stating that he belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Community, though he was a Christian. The election was held for election of a councillor for Ward No. 12, which is a reserved constituency for Adi Dravida Community. The election for Ward No. 12, Ami Municipality was held on 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998ACJ684; 1997(1)CTC396; (1997)IIMLJ336
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The insurance company has filed the above appeals against the award in M.C.O.P. No. 422 and 384 of 1992 on the file of Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Karur. Since both the O.Ps. arise out of a single accident, the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The claimants in O.P.No. 384 of 1992 are the father and brother of one Balu who died in the accident. The claimant in O.P. No. 422 of 1992 is the injured in the accident. The claimants' case is that the deceased Balu and the claimant in O.P. No. 422 of 1992 while travelling in a delivery van on 24.2.1992 at about 8.10 p.m. in Trichy Karur main road, near Kalipalayam, the van dashed against the bus which came in the opposite direction, the said deceased was employed as the person to deliver the goods and another claimant Nachimuthu was the salesman and both of them were travelling in the van as employees of the owner of the goods, since they were entrusted by their employer the work of delivering the art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ410
ORDERRaju, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made as endorsement on the case bundle as follows:The C.R.P. Nos. 2138 and 2139 of 1996 are withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit.The learned senior counsel even on the prior hearing has been apprised that this Court cannot give any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit, and it is for the petitioner to either pursue the revisions by making submissions on the merits of the revisions themselves or withdraw the revisions if she so desires. As a matter of fact submissions were also made on merits initially, though at a later stage, adjournment was taken. But in spite of the same, endorsement has been made by the counsel on record as above on his own volition.2. C.R.P. No. 2138 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 13.10.1995 dismissing the unnumbered I.A. filed on 31.7.1995 for seeking the relief of substituting the fourth defendant as the plaintiff to enable him to pursue and prosecute the suit further. C.R.P. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ612
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. In the light of the provisions contained in Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, which provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State, we do not consider that it is permissible to interfere with the acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers for the election to Village Panchayat. The election process commences from the issuance of the calendar of events till the results of election are declared. As the acceptance or rejection of nomination is out of the stages in the process of election, the validity of it can only be challenged in an election petition and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was a controversy earlier to introduction of Part IX and Article 243-O of the Constitution, as to whether the principles underlying Article 329 of the Constitution could be exte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ336
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The insurance company has filed the above appeals against the award in M.C.O.P. Nos. 422 and 384 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur. Since both the O.Ps. arise out of a single accident, the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The claimants in O.P. No. 384 of 1992 are the father and brother of one Balu who died in the accident. The claimant in O.P. No. 422 of 1992 is the injured in the accident. The claimants' case is that the deceased Balu and the claimant in O.P. No. 422 of 1992 while travelling in a delivery van on 24.2.92 at about 8.10 p.m. in Trichy Karur main road, near Kalipalayam, the van dashed against the bus which came in the opposite direction, the said deceased was employed as the person to deliver the goods and another claimant Nachimuthu was the salesman and both of them were travelling in the van as employees of the owner of the goods, since they were entrusted by their employer the work of delivering the artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1287
ORDER : Whereas Tr. D. Venkatesan (No. 3158/Madras City Police) who was working as O.S. Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Triplicane Range is a public servant; Whereas it is alleged that Tr. D. Venkatesan, pursuant to the demand made by him on 22-7-89 at his Police Station from Tr. P. P. Augustin, driver of auto rickshaw TMR 599, of sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) which he reduced to Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) as gratification, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for not taking action against the said P. P. Augustin, and for favouring him in the case in Traffic Investigation Triplicane Range Cr. No. 3357/89 under S. 337, I.P.C. and S. 116 of Motor Vehicles Act, which was being investigated by the said Tr. D. Venkatesan and in which the said Tr. P. P. Augustin was shown as the accused, accepted a sum of Rs. 150/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only) as part payment on 22-7-89 at about 7 p.m. at the Police Station, and then released Tr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(57)ECC171; 1997(91)ELT274(Mad)
1. The order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge does not in any way affect the interests of the Customs Department, inasmuch as the direction issued by the learned single Judge reads thus :- 'In view of the above, the respondents are directed to implement the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Madras in Appeal NOC/V-129/96/Md & C/V-130/96/Md, dated 18-5-1996 in accordance with law, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is open to the respondents to direct the petitioner to execute necessary customs surety or security bond to safeguard the interest of revenue to cover the disputed amounts, in case the contention of the revenue is accepted in appeal.' Thus, if the appellants succeed before the Supreme Court, the respondent is liable to reimburse. Even otherwise, before the order of the Tribunal is implemented pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge, if the appellants are able t...
Tag this Judgment!