Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
Sri Sowmya Screen Printers Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex., Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC126; 1998(97)ELT54(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard both the parties. 2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Declaration declaring that the proviso to Central Excise Notification No. 253/82-C.E., dated 8-11-1982 are illegal, arbitrary, void, unconstitutional and unenforceable insofar as they affect the petitioner herein. [Paragraph number as per certified copy.] 2. The impugned notification dated 8-11-1982 runs as follows : 'Notification No. 253/82-C.E., dated 8-11-1982 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and in supersession of the notifications of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) Nos. 80/76-Central Excises and 122/76-C.E., dated the 16th March, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby exempts cotton fabrics, falling under sub-item I of Item No. 19 of the First Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Modern Rice Mill Engineering Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ845Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Sri K. Chandru, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.2. The petitioner, viz., Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Modern Rice Mill Engineering Section has filed the above writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith regularise the 73 casual workmen, working in the Modern Rice Mills, those who have completed more than 24 calendar months with effect from the date on which they had completed 480 days of their service.3. Sri K. Chandru, learned counsel for the petitioner however restricts the prayer with regard to 69 persons only, whose names are found in Annexures I and II of the proceedings of the first respondent-Corporation. Sri K. Chandru, learned counsel for the petitioner-union, also contends that as per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as the Act), i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gandhi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Ministry of La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC255
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. All these actions-this Batch of Writ Petitions-filed by Importers-Dealers or otherwise - of motor vehicles into local area from any 1997/3/17 place outside the State of Tamil Nadu for use or sale herein- owning motor vehicle at the time of its entry into the local area-are analogous in nature.2. The thrust and focus - either on pure questions of law constitutional or otherwise or on facts the existence of which is a matter of proof-giving risk to legal figment ~ are mostly common or similar.3. Irrespective of the nomenclature of these actions-Writs - Whether for Declaration, mandamus. Prohibition and what not - the fact remains-constitutional questions revolving on :(i) Legislative competence ;(ii) Colourable piece of Legislation;(iii) Violation of rights under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India (for short Constitution);(iv) Absence of prior approval of the President of India under the Proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution.;(v) Challenge on...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sastha and anr. Vs. Gomathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ521
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. Nos.978 and 979 of 1994 have been filed by the landlady, and the other two Revisions are by the tenants.2. The landlady is the owner of a lodging house which she purchased in 1978. It originally belonged to one Ganesan, and because he was not getting good income from the property, he sold the same to the landlady in this case.3. There are about 24 rooms in the building which are used for lodging purpose, and in the downstairs, there are some shoprooms. The landlady filed eviction petitions against various tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i.e., for demolition and reconstruction, and also for the purpose of additional accommodation.4. Originally the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. When the matter was taken before the appellate authority, it allowed the appeal on both the grounds.5. The matter was taken to this Court by one of the tenants. The same was not admitted, and the aggrieved ...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar Vs. State, Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police, Kanjanpur Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC134
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.117 of 1989 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the appellant in C.A.No.196 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore. He was charged and tried for offences under Section 363 and 366, I.P.C.; acquitted for the offence under Section 363, I.P.C., but found guilty for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence the present revision.2. P.W. 2 is the victim in this case. P.W.1 is the mother of P.W.2. P.W.2 and accused are known to each other and that she had studied upto 9th standard. The accused used to talk to her in bus stand, school and other places. P.W.1 came to know about that and she reprimanded P.W.2 for her conduct.On 11.2.1989 when P.W.2 was returning from the school, the accused is said to have told her that she is leav...
Tag this Judgment!Daivid John Hopkins Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad366
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of S. Jagadeesen, J., dated 31-8-1995 in W.P.No. 11063 of 1995 (reported in : AIR1996Mad314 ).2. W.P.No. 11063 of 1995 was filed by the appellant, who is acitizen of United Kingdom, for a declaration that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1956 (Act 57 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which embodies the rule of law, and void.3. The case of the appellant, as putforth in the writ affidavit is, in short, as follows :-- The appellant come to India in 1970, mainly with the idea of making India his permanent home and spend his time in Ashrams for meditation and learning Indian philosophy. Initially, he stayed at Swami Vivekananda Sevashratns and Swami Vivekananda Home of Renunciation and Service, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. According to the appellant, he lived in the Ashram as Sanyasi for nearly 14 years, i.e., between 1970 and 1985 studying Mahabharai, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Textile Exporters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: [2000]245ITR521(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In this tax case petition the Department requires this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that income derived from Sri Lanka cannot be taxed in India 2. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85 the assessee entered into a joint venture with the National Textiles Corporation owned by the Government of Sri Lanka. By an agreement dt. 22nd June, 1980 the assessee was to provide a technical know-how for producing textiles. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85 the assessee received Rs. 2,80,838 as technical service charges and Rs. 2,10,629 as management service charges totalling Rs. 4,91,467. 3. The assessee claimed that the amount received from Sri Lanka under the agreement and repatriated to India was exempt from income-tax i...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.A. Ganapathi Mudaliar and 7 ors. Vs. Arumugathammal (Died) and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC445; (1997)IIMLJ608
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S.No. 9 of 1984, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court at Tenkasi, are the appellants. Plaintiff Arumughathammal was the sole respondent in the second appeal. She died and her legal representative has been impleaded as second respondent.2. Suit filed by the (deceased) plaintiff was one to recover a sum of Rs. 23,248-96. P. by sale of mortgaged properties, and for other consequential reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant on his own behalf and as legal guardian of defendants 7 and 8, executed a simple mortgage deed on 21.10.1975 for a sum of Rs. 17,000, agreeing to repay the same within a period of three years therefrom. He also agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1.25P. per Rs. 100 per month on the original principal. It is averred that the transaction was entered into for the benefit of the family and in his capacity as father-cum-manager of the family. Defendants 2 to 6 who are major adult members of the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam Alias Palaniappan Represented by Power Agent, M. Arumu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ496
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 41 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode.2. Petition for eviction was filed on the ground that the building in question requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, as stated in paragraph 5 of the petition. It is said that the condition of the building is very bad and the tenant entered into a lease arrangement orally with one Kuppammal in the year 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25 It originally belonged to one Karuppanna Chettiar's family. In a suit to which the landlord was also a party the same was declared as belonging to him. The tenant was intimated about this by Kuppammal, and after court proceedings, the tenant recognised the right of the landlord and paid rent. The rent was increased from Rs. 25 to Rs. 55. lt is said that the building is very old and weak, the materials like brick and wood are worked out and the entire portion is damaged. It is very difficult and cos...
Tag this Judgment!The School Committee of Devanga Higher Secondary School, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ77
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 16122 of 1994 dated 14.9.1994, dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there is sufficient material to held that the appellant vio-lated condition No. 2 of the gift deed and consequently, the grievance sought to be made against the impugned order that the power of resumption is not available to the respondent in the case on hand, cannot be sustained, since the only point urged by the learned se-nior counsel as a challenge to the impugned order at the time of bearing is not accepted by the learned Judge, the writ petition was dismissed.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ appeal, and the same was admitted by the First Bench on 17.9.1994 and interim stay of the operation of the order of the respondent in his proceedings dated 5.9.1994, was also stayed.3. In our opinion, the writ petition is maintainable. When the writ petition was hea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »